Martin Mclean Maver against A Williamson Haulage LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCKDY 98 (04 November 2025)

Martin Mclean Maver against A Williamson Haulage LTD (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCKDY 98 (04 November 2025)

The pursuer holds a possessory title to the boat mould under the extant 15-year agreement with Marusya, entitling him to sue for damage. The defenders owed a duty of care both in contract and at common law. Ownership is with Marusya, but the pursuer's possessory interest suffices for title and interest to sue. The second plea in law for the defenders is repelled.

Citation
[2025] SCKDY 98
Parties
Pursuer: Martin McLean Maver; Defender: A Williamson Haulage Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Sheriff Court Civil / Judgment After Preliminary Proof on Title and Interest to Sue
Outcome
Second plea in law for the defenders repelled; pursuer has title and interest to sue; hearing fixed on expenses and further procedure.
Legal Topics
Title and Interest to Sue, Possessory Title, Duty of Care in Haulage, Implied Terms, Ownership Dispute, Evidence Admissibility
Contract Law Delict/tort Law Property Law Civil Procedure Title and Interest to Sue Possessory Title Duty of Care in Haulage Implied Terms +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin McLean Maver

Pursuer

A Williamson Haulage Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Sheriff Court Civil / Judgment After Preliminary Proof on Title and Interest to Sue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the pursuer have title and interest to sue for damage to the boat mould?
  2. 2 Is the pursuer the owner or possessor of the mould?
  3. 3 Did the defenders owe a duty of care in contract and at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer holds a possessory title to the boat mould under the extant 15-year agreement with Marusya, entitling him to sue for damage. The defenders owed a duty of care both in contract and at common law. Ownership is with Marusya, but the pursuer's possessory interest suffices for title and interest to sue. The second plea in law for the defenders is repelled.

Court Disposition

Second plea in law for the defenders repelled; pursuer has title and interest to sue; hearing fixed on expenses and further procedure.

Orders

  • Repels the second plea in law for the defenders.
  • Fixes a hearing on expenses occasioned by the preliminary proof and for determination of further procedure.