Douglas & Anor v Stuart Wyse Ogilvie Estates Ltd (t/a General Accident Property Services) & Ors [2000] ScotCS 198 (14 July 2000)

Douglas & Anor v Stuart Wyse Ogilvie Estates Ltd (t/a General Accident Property Services) & Ors [2000] ScotCS 198 (14 July 2000)

The pursuers' claims for damages based on difference in value and cost of repairs are sufficiently relevant for proof before answer. Claims for alternative accommodation, travel, and additional living expenses are too remote and excluded from probation. The case against the second defenders regarding failure to insert a clause about woodworm and rot is irrelevant and excluded. The pursuers are entitled to proceed to proof on the remaining averments against all defenders.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 198
Parties
Pursuer: Norman Scott Douglas; Pursuer: Mrs Carole Louise Douglas; First Defender: Stuart Wise Ogilvie Estates Limited t/a General Accident Property Services; Second Defender: Messrs Alexander and Martin; Third Defender: Grampian Building Preservation Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages Action / Procedure Roll Debate, Interlocutory Decision
Outcome
Partial exclusion of averments; proof before answer allowed on remaining claims.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Causation, Remoteness of Damages, Measure of Damages, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Professional Negligence Property Law Duty of Care Causation Remoteness of Damages Measure of Damages Misrepresentation +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Scott Douglas

Pursuer

Mrs Carole Louise Douglas

Pursuer

Stuart Wise Ogilvie Estates Limited t/a General Accident Property Services

First Defender

Messrs Alexander and Martin

Second Defender

Grampian Building Preservation Limited

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Damages Action / Procedure Roll Debate, Interlocutory Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed duties of care to the pursuers in connection with the property purchase
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached those duties
  3. 3 Whether the breaches caused the losses claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' claims for damages based on difference in value and cost of repairs are sufficiently relevant for proof before answer. Claims for alternative accommodation, travel, and additional living expenses are too remote and excluded from probation. The case against the second defenders regarding failure to insert a clause about woodworm and rot is irrelevant and excluded. The pursuers are entitled to proceed to proof on the remaining averments against all defenders.

Court Disposition

Partial exclusion of averments; proof before answer allowed on remaining claims.

Orders

  • Averments regarding alternative accommodation, travel, and living expenses excluded from probation.
  • Averments regarding failure to insert clause about woodworm, dry or wet rot, or rising damp excluded from probation.