MAYPARK PROPERTIES LIMITED v. ROY G.L. STIRRAT AND OTHERS [2000] ScotSC 31 (10th November, 2000)

MAYPARK PROPERTIES LIMITED v. ROY G.L. STIRRAT AND OTHERS [2000] ScotSC 31 (10th November, 2000)

Although the defenders owed a duty of care to the pursuers and breached that duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in conducting the property search, the pursuers did not suffer a recoverable loss because they did not prove that the price paid exceeded the market value at the time of purchase; loss of anticipated profit on resale is not recoverable in law.

Citation
[2000] ScotSC 31
Parties
Pursuer: Maypark Properties Limited; Defender: Roy G L Stirrat and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; decree of absolvitor granted
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligent Misstatement, Measure of Damages, Property Searches, Professional Liability
Tort Property Law Professional Negligence Duty of Care Negligent Misstatement Measure of Damages Property Searches Professional 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maypark Properties Limited

Pursuer

Roy G L Stirrat and Others

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care to the pursuers in issuing a property search certificate
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached that duty of care
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers suffered recoverable loss as a result of the breach

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defenders owed a duty of care to the pursuers and breached that duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in conducting the property search, the pursuers did not suffer a recoverable loss because they did not prove that the price paid exceeded the market value at the time of purchase; loss of anticipated profit on resale is not recoverable in law.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; decree of absolvitor granted

Orders

  • Sheriff's interlocutor of 27 April 2000 recalled
  • Second plea in law for defenders sustained