AMN Group Ltd v. Gilcomston North Ltd & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_90 (20 June 2008)

AMN Group Ltd v. Gilcomston North Ltd & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_90 (20 June 2008)

The pursuers' claims have prima facie prescribed under section 11(1) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, as all relevant acts, neglects or defaults occurred before 1993 and material roofing defects were known to the pursuers by December 1996, more than five years before the action was raised. The defects affecting the concourse and lairage are not sufficiently distinct from those affecting the general purposes hall to warrant separate prescriptive periods. Prescription is not avoided by restriction of pleadings or by alleging additional grounds of complaint. No error induced by defenders was established.

Citation
[2008] CSOH 90 A861
Parties
Pursuer: ANM Group Limited; Defender: Gilcomston North Limited; Defender: Second Defenders; Defender: Third Defenders; Defender: Fourth Defenders
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Prescription
Outcome
Defenders' plea of prescription upheld; pursuers' claims are extinguished by prescription.
Legal Topics
Statutory Prescription, Limitation of Actions, Professional Negligence, Building Defects
Construction Law Contract Law Delict Prescription Statutory Prescription Limitation of Actions Professional Negligence Building Defects

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANM Group Limited

Pursuer

Gilcomston North Limited

Defender

Second Defenders

Defender

Third Defenders

Defender

Fourth Defenders

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Preliminary Proof Before Answer on Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' claims for damages are extinguished by the five-year prescription under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the running of prescription was delayed by lack of awareness or error induced by defenders
  3. 3 Criteria for distinct losses and defaults in composite structures for prescription purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' claims have prima facie prescribed under section 11(1) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, as all relevant acts, neglects or defaults occurred before 1993 and material roofing defects were known to the pursuers by December 1996, more than five years before the action was raised. The defects affecting the concourse and lairage are not sufficiently distinct from those affecting the general purposes hall to warrant separate prescriptive periods. Prescription is not avoided by restriction of pleadings or by alleging additional grounds of complaint. No error induced by defenders was established.

Court Disposition

Defenders' plea of prescription upheld; pursuers' claims are extinguished by prescription.

Orders

  • Action dismissed against all defenders due to prescription.