Ogilvie Construction LTD against M1 Re Glasgow LTD and Ogilvie Construction Ltd against Leach Rhodes Walker Ltd (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 44 (05 May 2026)

Ogilvie Construction LTD against M1 Re Glasgow LTD and Ogilvie Construction Ltd against Leach Rhodes Walker Ltd (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 44 (05 May 2026)

Prescription extinguished all claims except Ogilvie's claim against LRW for the 70mm Design. The prescriptive period commenced when works began and losses were incurred. Remedial works did not constitute relevant acknowledgement under section 10(1). Parties had sufficient awareness of loss, causation, and identity...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] CSOH 44
Parties
Pursuer: Ogilvie Construction Limited; Defender: M1 RE Glasgow Limited; Defender: Leach Rhodes Walker Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Dispute / Preliminary Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Claims by Ogilvie against LRW for the 70+30mm Remedial Design and Cavity Barrier Design, and claims by M1 against Ogilvie for the 70mm Design, 70+30mm Remedial Design, and Cavity Barrier Design are extinguished by prescription. Only Ogilvie's claim against LRW for the 70mm Design survives.
Legal Topics
Prescription of Contractual Obligations, Building Regulations Compliance, Fire Safety Standards, Acknowledgement of Debt, Economic Loss
Construction Law Contract Law Prescription and Limitation Prescription of Contractual Obligations Building Regulations Compliance Fire Safety Standards Acknowledgement of Debt Economic Loss

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ogilvie Construction Limited

Pursuer

M1 RE Glasgow Limited

Defender

Leach Rhodes Walker Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Dispute / Preliminary Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Has prescription extinguished Ogilvie's claims against LRW for the 70+30mm Remedial Design?
  2. 2 Has prescription extinguished Ogilvie's claims against LRW for the Cavity Barrier Design?
  3. 3 Has prescription extinguished M1's claims against Ogilvie for the 70mm Design?

Ratio Decidendi

Prescription extinguished all claims except Ogilvie's claim against LRW for the 70mm Design. The prescriptive period commenced when works began and losses were incurred. Remedial works did not constitute relevant acknowledgement under section 10(1). Parties had sufficient awareness of loss, causation, and identity for prescription to run. The amendments to section 11(3) did not alter the established meaning of 'loss, injury or damage' for prescription purposes.

Court Disposition

Claims by Ogilvie against LRW for the 70+30mm Remedial Design and Cavity Barrier Design, and claims by M1 against Ogilvie for the 70mm Design, 70+30mm Remedial Design, and Cavity Barrier Design are extinguished by prescription. Only Ogilvie's claim against LRW for the 70mm Design survives.

Orders

  • Proof before answer concluded; prescription applies to all claims except Ogilvie's claim against LRW for the 70mm Design.
  • No relevant acknowledgement found under section 10(1).