Anm Group Ltd v Gilcomston North Ltd & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_90 (20 June 2008)

Anm Group Ltd v Gilcomston North Ltd & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_90 (20 June 2008)

Prescription under section 11(1) of the 1973 Act began to run by December 1996 at the latest, when the pursuers had sustained loss and damage referable to the roofing of the Centre as a whole and to each main segment individually. All alleged defaults occurred before 1993. The defects in the concourse and lairage were not sufficiently distinct from those in the general purposes hall to warrant separate prescriptive periods. The pursuers' restriction of their claim to certain areas and additional grounds of complaint did not prevent prescription from operating. The pursuers failed to prove lack of awareness or error induced by the third defenders. Accordingly, the defenders' plea of...

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_90
Parties
Pursuer: ANM Group Limited; First Defender: Gilcomston North Limited; Second Defender: Second Defenders; Third Defender: Third Defenders; Fourth Defender: Fourth Defenders
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil (damages for Defective Construction) / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Prescription
Outcome
Defenders' plea of prescription sustained; pursuers' claim extinguished by prescription.
Legal Topics
Prescription of Obligations, Awareness of Loss and Actionable Default, Multiple Defects in Composite Structures, Burden of Proof in Prescription, Interpretation of Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Construction Law Contract Law Delict (tort) Prescription and Limitation Prescription of Obligations Awareness of Loss and Actionable Default Multiple Defects in Composite Structures Burden of Proof in Prescription +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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANM Group Limited

Pursuer

Gilcomston North Limited

First Defender

Second Defenders

Second Defender

Third Defenders

Third Defender

Fourth Defenders

Fourth Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (damages for Defective Construction) / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When does the five-year prescription period begin to run for claims arising from defects in a composite structure?
  2. 2 Does knowledge of one defect start prescription for all similar defects?
  3. 3 What is the required awareness for section 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973?

Ratio Decidendi

Prescription under section 11(1) of the 1973 Act began to run by December 1996 at the latest, when the pursuers had sustained loss and damage referable to the roofing of the Centre as a whole and to each main segment individually. All alleged defaults occurred before 1993. The defects in the concourse and lairage were not sufficiently distinct from those in the general purposes hall to warrant separate prescriptive periods. The pursuers' restriction of their claim to certain areas and additional grounds of complaint did not prevent prescription from operating. The pursuers failed to prove lack of awareness or error induced by the third defenders. Accordingly, the defenders' plea of...

Court Disposition

Defenders' plea of prescription sustained; pursuers' claim extinguished by prescription.

Orders

  • Action dismissed as extinguished by prescription.