IAIN HAWTHORNE & KATHLEEN HAWTHORNE v. PHILIP ANDERSON &c [2014] ScotCS CSOH_65 (04 April 2014)

IAIN HAWTHORNE & KATHLEEN HAWTHORNE v. PHILIP ANDERSON &c [2014] ScotCS CSOH_65 (04 April 2014)

The defenders were not negligent because the pursuers did not instruct them to ensure site 2 was capable of independent development, and the defenders could reasonably assume the title included the Mill Drive. Even if there was negligence, causation was not established as the pursuers would have proceeded with the transaction regardless. The claim was not prescribed, but fails on negligence and causation.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_65
Parties
Pursuer: Iain Hawthorne; Pursuer: Kathleen Hawthorne; Defender: Philip Anderson &c
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Claim dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of defenders.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Title Investigation, Planning Permission, Prescription, Causation, Damages
Professional Negligence Property Law Planning Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Title Investigation Planning Permission Prescription Causation +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iain Hawthorne

Pursuer

Kathleen Hawthorne

Pursuer

Philip Anderson &c

Defender

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders (solicitors) were negligent in failing to advise the pursuers about title and access issues affecting development potential of site 2
  2. 2 Whether the claim was prescribed under the Prescription and Limitation Act (Scotland) 1973
  3. 3 Whether any negligence caused the loss claimed by the pursuers

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders were not negligent because the pursuers did not instruct them to ensure site 2 was capable of independent development, and the defenders could reasonably assume the title included the Mill Drive. Even if there was negligence, causation was not established as the pursuers would have proceeded with the transaction regardless. The claim was not prescribed, but fails on negligence and causation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; decree of absolvitor granted in favour of defenders.

Orders

  • Decree of absolvitor in favour of defenders
  • Case put out by order to deal with expenses