GW Tait & Sons SSC v Taylor & Anor [2001] ScotCS 234 (16 October 2001)

GW Tait & Sons SSC v Taylor & Anor [2001] ScotCS 234 (16 October 2001)

The pursuers failed to demonstrate that Mrs Taylor was enriched at their expense, failed to show absence of legal justification for her retention of the benefit, and failed to establish that it would be equitable to grant the remedy sought. The benefit to Mrs Taylor arose from her husband's instruction before the involvement of the Building Society, and any claim is time-barred. The obligation is not one related to land for the purposes of prescription.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 234
Parties
Pursuer: G. W. Tait & Sons, S. S. C.; First Defender: Mrs Susan Margaret Taylor; Second Defender: Mr Thomson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on First Defender's First and Second Pleas in Law
Outcome
Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the first defender; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unjustified Enrichment, Professional Negligence, Prescription and Limitation, Standard Security, Recompense, Equity
Property Law Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Unjustified Enrichment Professional Negligence Prescription and Limitation Standard Security Recompense +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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. W. Tait & Sons, S. S. C.

Pursuer

Mrs Susan Margaret Taylor

First Defender

Mr Thomson

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on First Defender's First and Second Pleas in Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Taylor was unjustifiably enriched at the expense of the pursuers
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers have a relevant claim in unjustified enrichment against Mrs Taylor
  3. 3 Whether the claim is time-barred by prescription

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to demonstrate that Mrs Taylor was enriched at their expense, failed to show absence of legal justification for her retention of the benefit, and failed to establish that it would be equitable to grant the remedy sought. The benefit to Mrs Taylor arose from her husband's instruction before the involvement of the Building Society, and any claim is time-barred. The obligation is not one related to land for the purposes of prescription.

Court Disposition

Decree of absolvitor granted in favour of the first defender; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Sustain the first and second pleas-in-law for the first defender.
  • Grant decree of absolvitor.