Monaghan & Anor (AP) v Buchanan & Ors [2010] ScotCS CSOH_69 (28 May 2010)

Monaghan & Anor (AP) v Buchanan & Ors [2010] ScotCS CSOH_69 (28 May 2010)

The pursuers' right of action against the architect arose at the time of purchase in 1983, when they relied on the architect's certificate and suffered economic loss by paying more than the property's true value. The defenders' failure to raise proceedings within the 20-year prescriptive period extinguished the claim. The pursuers' pleadings are relevant and sufficiently specific to proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_69
Parties
Pursuers: Alister Monaghan and Another (A.P.); Defenders: Derek Buchanan and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Professional Negligence / Procedure Roll Discussion on Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
First and second pleas in law for the defenders repelled; proof before answer ordered.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Negligence, Architect's Certificate, Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973, Economic Loss, Title and Interest to Sue
Professional Negligence Contract Law Property Law Limitation and Prescription Solicitor's Negligence Architect's Certificate Prescription and Limitation (scotland) Act 1973 Economic Loss +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alister Monaghan and Another (A.P.)

Pursuers

Derek Buchanan and Others

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Professional Negligence / Procedure Roll Discussion on Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' claim against their former solicitors for failure to raise an action against an architect was extinguished by prescription under section 7 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers had a relevant case against the architect for negligent misstatement in the certificate
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers' averments of loss and title to sue were sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' right of action against the architect arose at the time of purchase in 1983, when they relied on the architect's certificate and suffered economic loss by paying more than the property's true value. The defenders' failure to raise proceedings within the 20-year prescriptive period extinguished the claim. The pursuers' pleadings are relevant and sufficiently specific to proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

First and second pleas in law for the defenders repelled; proof before answer ordered.

Orders

  • Repel first and second pleas in law for the defenders
  • Order proof before answer