Huntaven Properties Ltd v Hunter Construction (Aberdeen) Ltd & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSOH_57 (30 March 2017)

Huntaven Properties Ltd v Hunter Construction (Aberdeen) Ltd & Ors [2017] ScotCS CSOH_57 (30 March 2017)

Material loss, injury or damage was evident by September 2009 (surface defects) and certainly by February 2010 (widespread delamination and fibre balling). The pursuer could with reasonable diligence have become aware of the relevant loss by those dates. The existence of the defects liability period and remedial works did not postpone the accrual of the cause of action. Accordingly, the obligations to make reparation had prescribed before the action was raised.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_57
Parties
Pursuer: Huntaven Properties Limited; First Defender: Hunter Construction (Aberdeen) Limited; Second Defender: Airsid Installations Limited; Third Defender: GSLP9999 Limited; Fourth Defender: George Hutchison Associates Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (construction Dispute) / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Prescription
Outcome
Claims against the first, third, and fourth defenders are prescribed and dismissed.
Legal Topics
Prescription and Limitation of Actions, Breach of Contract, Professional Negligence, Defects Liability, Damages
Construction Law Contract Law Delict (tort) Civil Procedure Prescription and Limitation of Actions Breach of Contract Professional Negligence Defects Liability +1 more

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

Parties

Huntaven Properties Limited

Pursuer

Hunter Construction (Aberdeen) Limited

First Defender

Airsid Installations Limited

Second Defender

GSLP9999 Limited

Third Defender

George Hutchison Associates Limited

Fourth Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (construction Dispute) / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claims against the defenders have prescribed under the Prescription (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 When material loss, injury or damage (damnum) occurred for the purposes of prescription
  3. 3 Whether the defects liability period or remedial works postponed the accrual of the cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

Material loss, injury or damage was evident by September 2009 (surface defects) and certainly by February 2010 (widespread delamination and fibre balling). The pursuer could with reasonable diligence have become aware of the relevant loss by those dates. The existence of the defects liability period and remedial works did not postpone the accrual of the cause of action. Accordingly, the obligations to make reparation had prescribed before the action was raised.

Court Disposition

Claims against the first, third, and fourth defenders are prescribed and dismissed.

Orders

  • Action dismissed against the first, third, and fourth defenders on grounds of prescription.