Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd v Shetland Islands Council [2014] ScotCS CSOH_17 (04 February 2014)

Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd v Shetland Islands Council [2014] ScotCS CSOH_17 (04 February 2014)

An action seeking declarator of liability for breach of contract and delict, which specifies the nature of the breach and resulting loss (even if not quantified), constitutes a relevant claim for part-implement of the obligation under section 9 of the 1973 Act and interrupts prescription. The statutory provisions must be interpreted broadly and purposively to protect rights and avoid unjust curtailment.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_17
Parties
Pursuer: Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd; Defender: Shetland Islands Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/delict / Interlocutory Decision on Prescription Plea
Outcome
Defender's prescription plea repelled; action allowed to proceed to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation, Declarator, Damages, Statutory Interpretation
Contract Law Delict (tort) Civil Procedure Prescription and Limitation Declarator Damages Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd

Pursuer

Shetland Islands Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/delict / Interlocutory Decision on Prescription Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an action raised with only conclusions for declarator interrupts the running of short negative prescription under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, sections 6 and 9.

Ratio Decidendi

An action seeking declarator of liability for breach of contract and delict, which specifies the nature of the breach and resulting loss (even if not quantified), constitutes a relevant claim for part-implement of the obligation under section 9 of the 1973 Act and interrupts prescription. The statutory provisions must be interpreted broadly and purposively to protect rights and avoid unjust curtailment.

Court Disposition

Defender's prescription plea repelled; action allowed to proceed to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Repel answer 34.1 and exclude related averments from probation.
  • Sustain pursuer's fifth plea in law to that extent.