Mair v. Arshad [2007] ScotSC 60 (23 October 2007)

Mair v. Arshad [2007] ScotSC 60 (23 October 2007)

The pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently specific to give fair notice to the defender in the context of a simple, fixed-price construction contract. The adequacy of the contractual payment mechanism under section 110(1) of the Act, and whether the statutory scheme applies, are questions of fact that cannot be determined without proof. Both parties are allowed a proof before answer on their respective averments.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 60
Parties
Pursuer: Peter Mair; Defender: Mohammed Arshad
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Interlocutory (debate on Relevancy and Specification, Proof Before Answer Allowed)
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; defender found liable in expenses for the diet of debate.
Legal Topics
Adequacy of Payment Mechanism, Specification of Pleadings, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, Scheme for Construction Contracts (scotland) Regulations 1998, Fixed Price Construction Contracts
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Adequacy of Payment Mechanism Specification of Pleadings Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 Scheme for Construction Contracts (scotland) Regulations 1998 Fixed Price Construction Contracts

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

Parties

Peter Mair

Pursuer

Mohammed Arshad

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (construction Contract Dispute) / Interlocutory (debate on Relevancy and Specification, Proof Before Answer Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently specific to give fair notice to the defender
  2. 2 Whether the contract provides an adequate mechanism for determining payments due under section 110 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the Scheme for Construction Contracts applies to the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently specific to give fair notice to the defender in the context of a simple, fixed-price construction contract. The adequacy of the contractual payment mechanism under section 110(1) of the Act, and whether the statutory scheme applies, are questions of fact that cannot be determined without proof. Both parties are allowed a proof before answer on their respective averments.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; defender found liable in expenses for the diet of debate.

Orders

  • Allows both parties a proof of their respective averments on dates to be fixed hereafter.
  • Finds the defender liable to the pursuer in the expenses as taxed occasioned by the diet of debate.