Scott Lithgow LTd v GEC Electrical Projects Ltd [1989] ScotCS CSOH_3 (14 November 1989)

Scott Lithgow LTd v GEC Electrical Projects Ltd [1989] ScotCS CSOH_3 (14 November 1989)

The pursuers' pleadings fail to aver ownership or possessory interest in the defective equipment, and do not establish sufficient proximity, reliance, or nomination to support a duty of care for pure economic loss. The existence of a contractual chain and limitation clauses further point away from imposing a quasi-delictual duty. The claims are not relevantly pled and must fail.

Citation
[1989] ScotCS CSOH_3
Parties
Pursuer: Scott Lithgow Ltd; Pursuer: Lord Advocate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence; Defender: G.E.C. Electrical Projects Ltd; Defender: Second Defender (unnamed subcontractor); Defender: Third Defender (unnamed subcontractor); Defender: Fourth Defender (unnamed subcontractor, in receivership); Defender: Fifth Defender (unnamed subcontractor); Third Party: Second Third Party (insurance company, unnamed)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 November 1989
Procedural Posture
Delictual Damages / Procedure Roll (preliminary Pleas)
Outcome
Action dismissed as irrelevant against all defenders except possibly first defender; claim against first defender allowed to proceed to enquiry subject to contract terms.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Proximity, Reliance, Contractual Chain, Ownership of Property
Delict Negligence Contract Duty of Care Economic Loss Proximity Reliance Contractual Chain +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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott Lithgow Ltd

Pursuer

Lord Advocate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence

Pursuer

G.E.C. Electrical Projects Ltd

Defender

Second Defender (unnamed subcontractor)

Defender

Third Defender (unnamed subcontractor)

Defender

Fourth Defender (unnamed subcontractor, in receivership)

Defender

Fifth Defender (unnamed subcontractor)

Defender

Second Third Party (insurance company, unnamed)

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Delictual Damages / Procedure Roll (preliminary Pleas)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a duty of care exists between defenders and pursuers for pure economic loss arising from defective wiring in naval vessel.
  2. 2 Whether proximity, reliance, nomination, or ownership are necessary elements for establishing such duty.
  3. 3 Effect of contractual relationships and limitation clauses on quasi-delictual liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings fail to aver ownership or possessory interest in the defective equipment, and do not establish sufficient proximity, reliance, or nomination to support a duty of care for pure economic loss. The existence of a contractual chain and limitation clauses further point away from imposing a quasi-delictual duty. The claims are not relevantly pled and must fail.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as irrelevant against all defenders except possibly first defender; claim against first defender allowed to proceed to enquiry subject to contract terms.

Orders

  • Action dismissed against second, third, fourth, and fifth defenders.
  • Action against first defender allowed to proceed to enquiry if otherwise relevant.