Graham & Anor v EA Bell & Co & Ors [2000] ScotCS 82 (24 March 2000)

Graham & Anor v EA Bell & Co & Ors [2000] ScotCS 82 (24 March 2000)

The pursuers' alternative claims as individuals had prescribed prior to their introduction in February 1999. The pleadings failed to establish entitlement to rely on sections 11(3) or 6(4) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 due to lack of specification and relevant averments. The second-named pursuer's individual claim lacked sufficient averments to substantiate a professional relationship with the defenders.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 82
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Graham; Pursuer: Mrs Anne Graham; Defender: E A Bell & Co; Defender: Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Hearing
Outcome
Third and fourth conclusions deleted; first, second, and third pleas-in-law for defenders sustained (third only as relates to fourth conclusion); fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth pleas-in-law for pursuers repelled; proof before answer allowed quoad ultra.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Professional Negligence, Prescription and Limitation, Partnership Liability
Contract Professional Negligence Prescription Breach of Contract Prescription and Limitation Partnership Liability

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Graham

Pursuer

Mrs Anne Graham

Pursuer

E A Bell & Co

Defender

Others

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims by pursuers as individuals had prescribed
  2. 2 Whether pursuers could rely on sections 11(2), 11(3), or 6(4) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  3. 3 Sufficiency of pleadings for individual claims by second-named pursuer

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' alternative claims as individuals had prescribed prior to their introduction in February 1999. The pleadings failed to establish entitlement to rely on sections 11(3) or 6(4) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 due to lack of specification and relevant averments. The second-named pursuer's individual claim lacked sufficient averments to substantiate a professional relationship with the defenders.

Court Disposition

Third and fourth conclusions deleted; first, second, and third pleas-in-law for defenders sustained (third only as relates to fourth conclusion); fourth, sixth, seventh, and eighth pleas-in-law for pursuers repelled; proof before answer allowed quoad ultra.

Orders

  • Delete third and fourth conclusions
  • Sustain first and second pleas-in-law for defenders