Brian McCardle against Gerald George Grady (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCGLA 36 (01 April 2025)

Brian McCardle against Gerald George Grady (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCGLA 36 (01 April 2025)

The court found that the pursuer was contractually entitled to payment for the communal rot work (£12,000), additional electrical and plumbing work (£1,580), and reimbursement for the home report (£995). The defender was unjustifiably enriched by retaining £3,000 paid by a third party for communal work and is liable to pay that sum to the pursuer. The claims were not time-barred as the work was completed after January 2019. The defender failed to establish any entitlement to a price reduction under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and there was no evidence of illegality or pactum illicitum rendering the contracts unenforceable.

Citation
[2025] SCGLA 36
Parties
Pursuer: Brian McCardle; Defender: Gerald George Grady
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil (ordinary Cause) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Decree for payment in favour of the pursuer.
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Prescription and Limitation, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Pactum Illicitum, Unjust Enrichment, Contract Formation, Payment for Services Rendered
Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Consumer Law Quantum Meruit Prescription and Limitation Consumer Rights Act 2015 Pactum Illicitum Contract Formation +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian McCardle

Pursuer

Gerald George Grady

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (ordinary Cause) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender is contractually bound to pay the pursuer for communal rot work and additional services
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer is entitled to payment for additional electrical and plumbing work
  3. 3 Whether the defender is unjustifiably enriched by retaining part of a third party's payment

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer was contractually entitled to payment for the communal rot work (£12,000), additional electrical and plumbing work (£1,580), and reimbursement for the home report (£995). The defender was unjustifiably enriched by retaining £3,000 paid by a third party for communal work and is liable to pay that sum to the pursuer. The claims were not time-barred as the work was completed after January 2019. The defender failed to establish any entitlement to a price reduction under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and there was no evidence of illegality or pactum illicitum rendering the contracts unenforceable.

Court Disposition

Decree for payment in favour of the pursuer.

Orders

  • Defender to pay pursuer £17,575 with interest at 8% per annum from 10 October 2023 until payment.
  • Hearing on expenses assigned for 14 April 2025 at 2 pm by telephone conference call.