KEITH, MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL AGAINST DAVID ANDERSON KEITH & Ors [2019] ScotCS CSOH_29 (20 March 2019)

KEITH, MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL AGAINST DAVID ANDERSON KEITH & Ors [2019] ScotCS CSOH_29 (20 March 2019)

The pursuer suffered loss, injury or damage when it incurred expenditure constructing the development in reliance on the fourth defender’s advice, between December 2007 and June 2009. The pursuer was aware of this expenditure at the time. Accordingly, the obligation to make reparation was extinguished by the short negative prescription before the action was raised, and the claim is time-barred.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_29
Parties
Pursuer: Midlothian Council; First Defender: David Anderson Keith, Samuel Anthony Sweeney, Allan D Rennie, and Stephen Blennerhassett as former partners of the now dissolved partnership of the Firm of Bracewell Stirling Architects; Second Defender: Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical Limited; Third Defender: RPS Planning and Development Ltd; Fourth Defender: Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action for Damages / Debate on Relevancy and Prescription
Outcome
Action dismissed as time-barred (prescribed)
Legal Topics
Prescription of Obligations, Damages for Negligent Advice, Awareness of Loss Under Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973
Contract Law Professional Negligence Prescription and Limitation Prescription of Obligations Damages for Negligent Advice Awareness of Loss Under Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973

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

Midlothian Council

Pursuer

David Anderson Keith, Samuel Anthony Sweeney, Allan D Rennie, and Stephen Blennerhassett as former partners of the now dissolved partnership of the Firm of Bracewell Stirling Architects

First Defender

Raeburn Drilling and Geotechnical Limited

Second Defender

RPS Planning and Development Ltd

Third Defender

Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Limited

Fourth Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action for Damages / Debate on Relevancy and Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did loss (damnum) occur for the purposes of prescription under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973?
  2. 2 Was the pursuer aware, or could with reasonable diligence have been aware, of loss more than five years before raising the action?
  3. 3 Does the pursuer's claim prescribe due to the passage of time?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer suffered loss, injury or damage when it incurred expenditure constructing the development in reliance on the fourth defender’s advice, between December 2007 and June 2009. The pursuer was aware of this expenditure at the time. Accordingly, the obligation to make reparation was extinguished by the short negative prescription before the action was raised, and the claim is time-barred.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as time-barred (prescribed)

Orders

  • Sustained fourth defender’s pleas to relevancy and prescription
  • Decree of dismissal granted