Rogerson Roofing Ltd v Hall & Tawse Scotland Ltd [2000] ScotCS 11 (14 January 2000)

Rogerson Roofing Ltd v Hall & Tawse Scotland Ltd [2000] ScotCS 11 (14 January 2000)

The arbiter erred in sustaining the plea of no title to sue on the basis of lack of averment of architect's consent, as this was not specified in the respondents' pleadings. The claimants' averments regarding assignation were sufficiently specific to allow a preliminary proof before answer.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 11
Parties
Claimants and Appellants: Rogerson Roofing Limited; Respondents: Hall & Tawse Scotland Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Stated Case From Arbitration / Opinion of the Court on Questions of Law Arising From Arbitration
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; questions 1 and 2 answered in the negative, question 3 answered in the affirmative.
Legal Topics
Title to Sue, Assignation of Contractual Rights, Waiver and Personal Bar, Pleading and Specification, Relevancy of Averments
Contract Law Arbitration Law Title to Sue Assignation of Contractual Rights Waiver and Personal Bar Pleading and Specification Relevancy of Averments

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rogerson Roofing Limited

Claimants and Appellants

Hall & Tawse Scotland Limited

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Stated Case From Arbitration / Opinion of the Court on Questions of Law Arising From Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbiter was correct to sustain a plea of no title to sue based on lack of averment of architect's consent to assignation
  2. 2 Whether the arbiter was correct to consider only the claimants' averments and ignore the respondents' challenge
  3. 3 Whether the claimants' averments regarding assignation were sufficiently specific to allow a preliminary proof

Ratio Decidendi

The arbiter erred in sustaining the plea of no title to sue on the basis of lack of averment of architect's consent, as this was not specified in the respondents' pleadings. The claimants' averments regarding assignation were sufficiently specific to allow a preliminary proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; questions 1 and 2 answered in the negative, question 3 answered in the affirmative.

Orders

  • Preliminary proof before answer allowed on the issue of title to sue.
  • No dismissal of claim at this stage.