Comino Properties Ltd against DHKK Ltd (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCEDI 78 (16 October 2025)

Comino Properties Ltd against DHKK Ltd (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCEDI 78 (16 October 2025)

The pursuer failed to plead a relevant case of professional negligence because there were no averments of the usual and normal practice of chartered surveyors, no averment of a departure from such practice, and no expert evidence. The alleged errors were within the core professional functions of a surveyor and not so obvious as to dispense with the Hunter v Hanley standard. The pursuer also failed to aver material loss as defined by Article 3, having not pled the market value at the relevant date. The action was therefore dismissed as irrelevant.

Citation
[2025] SCEDI 78
Parties
Pursuer: Comino Properties Ltd; Defender: DHKK Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Preliminary Plea—debate on Relevancy
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Surveyor's Liability, Home Report Requirements, Measure of Damages, Professional Standard of Care
Professional Negligence Property Law Consumer Protection Surveyor's Liability Home Report Requirements Measure of Damages Professional Standard of Care

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Comino Properties Ltd

Pursuer

DHKK Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Preliminary Plea—debate on Relevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer pled a relevant case of professional negligence against a surveyor under Article 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2008
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings and evidence met the required standard for professional negligence
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer averred material loss as defined by the legislation

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to plead a relevant case of professional negligence because there were no averments of the usual and normal practice of chartered surveyors, no averment of a departure from such practice, and no expert evidence. The alleged errors were within the core professional functions of a surveyor and not so obvious as to dispense with the Hunter v Hanley standard. The pursuer also failed to aver material loss as defined by Article 3, having not pled the market value at the relevant date. The action was therefore dismissed as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Sustains the defender's first preliminary plea-in-law
  • Dismisses the action