MacDonald-Haig v. MacNeill & Critchley (a firm) & Ors [2004] ScotSC 15 (20 February 2004)

MacDonald-Haig v. MacNeill & Critchley (a firm) & Ors [2004] ScotSC 15 (20 February 2004)

The pursuer did not suffer actual loss, injury or damage in 1980 when she signed the disposition, but only in 1996 when the right of pre-emption was defeated by the disponees' gift of the property. Therefore, the obligation to make reparation did not become enforceable until 1996, and the claim raised in 2001 was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 15
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Mrs Vanessa MacDonald-Haig; Defenders and Appellants: MacNeill & Critchley, Peter F MacDonald, Gillian M Silver, Alastair Henry Robb, Neil Brian Speight, Frank Critchley and William C Murray
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor on Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to with minor qualification.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Right of Pre Emption, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Measure and Timing of Loss, Breach of Contract, Professional Advice Liability
Professional Negligence Contract Law Property Law Limitation and Prescription Solicitor's Duty of Care Right of Pre Emption Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Measure and Timing of Loss +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Mrs Vanessa MacDonald-Haig

Pursuer and Respondent

MacNeill & Critchley, Peter F MacDonald, Gillian M Silver, Alastair Henry Robb, Neil Brian Speight, Frank Critchley and William C Murray

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor on Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim against her solicitors for negligent advice and breach of contract is time-barred under section 7 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer suffered loss at the time of signing the disposition in 1980 or only when the right of pre-emption was defeated in 1996
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are relevant and sufficiently specified

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer did not suffer actual loss, injury or damage in 1980 when she signed the disposition, but only in 1996 when the right of pre-emption was defeated by the disponees' gift of the property. Therefore, the obligation to make reparation did not become enforceable until 1996, and the claim raised in 2001 was not time-barred. The sheriff was correct to repel the defenders' pleas of prescription and irrelevancy.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to with minor qualification.

Orders

  • Proof before answer to proceed on a date to be fixed by the sheriff.
  • Defenders and appellants found liable to the pursuer and respondent in the taxed expenses of the appeal; account to be taxed by the auditor of court.