MacGregor & Anor v. City of Edinburgh Council [2004] ScotCS 18 (20 January 2004)

MacGregor & Anor v. City of Edinburgh Council [2004] ScotCS 18 (20 January 2004)

The pursuers are entitled to a proof on whether there was an assumption of responsibility by the defenders for the accuracy of the certificate and whether they incurred costs to rectify the planning status, but their claim for loss of £40,000 in sale value is irrelevant and does not flow directly from the alleged negligence.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 18
Parties
Pursuers: Helen MacGregor and Another; Defenders: The City of Edinburgh Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (delict/negligence) / Procedure Roll (pleadings Debate) – Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Partial dismissal; proof before answer allowed on remaining averments
Legal Topics
Pure Economic Loss, Negligent Misstatement, Assumption of Responsibility, Planning Permission Certificates
Delict Negligence Planning Law Pure Economic Loss Negligent Misstatement Assumption of Responsibility Planning Permission Certificates

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

Parties

Helen MacGregor and Another

Pursuers

The City of Edinburgh Council

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (delict/negligence) / Procedure Roll (pleadings Debate) – Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care to the pursuers for an erroneous planning certificate issued to a third party
  2. 2 Whether there was an assumption of responsibility by the defenders to the pursuers
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers' claimed losses are recoverable as flowing from the alleged negligent misstatement

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers are entitled to a proof on whether there was an assumption of responsibility by the defenders for the accuracy of the certificate and whether they incurred costs to rectify the planning status, but their claim for loss of £40,000 in sale value is irrelevant and does not flow directly from the alleged negligence.

Court Disposition

Partial dismissal; proof before answer allowed on remaining averments

Orders

  • Refused to remit to probation the averments relating to the alleged loss of £40,000; first conclusion restricted to £5,803.01
  • Allowed proof before answer on the remaining averments