Towan Timber Supplies (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Water Business Stream Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_26 (23 March 2011)

Towan Timber Supplies (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Water Business Stream Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_26 (23 March 2011)

The sheriff principal was correct to allow proof before answer as the respondents' averments, if proved, could establish that the repeated issuing of charge notices by the appellants induced the respondents to refrain from making relevant claims, thus suspending prescription under section 6(4)(a) of the 1973 Act.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_26
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: Rowan Timber Supplies (Scotland) Limited; Defenders and Appellants: Scottish Water Business Stream Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Principal's Decision After Sheriff Dismissed Action at Debate
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff principal's interlocutor affirmed.
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation, Unjustified Enrichment, Interpretation of Statutes
Civil Law Scots Law Prescription and Limitation Unjustified Enrichment Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rowan Timber Supplies (Scotland) Limited

Pursuers and Respondents

Scottish Water Business Stream Limited

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Principal's Decision After Sheriff Dismissed Action at Debate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff principal was correct to recall the sheriff's interlocutor dismissing the action as prescribed
  2. 2 Whether error induced by the debtor's conduct can suspend the running of prescription under section 6(4)(a) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff principal was correct to allow proof before answer as the respondents' averments, if proved, could establish that the repeated issuing of charge notices by the appellants induced the respondents to refrain from making relevant claims, thus suspending prescription under section 6(4)(a) of the 1973 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff principal's interlocutor affirmed.

Orders

  • Case to proceed to proof before answer.