ANGELA MCMANUS AND ANOTHER AGAINST SCOTT WILSON SCOTLAND LTD [2020] ScotCS CSOH_47 (19 May 2020)

ANGELA MCMANUS AND ANOTHER AGAINST SCOTT WILSON SCOTLAND LTD [2020] ScotCS CSOH_47 (19 May 2020)

The defender owed a duty of care to the pursuers as a professional engaged to investigate and remediate contaminated land for residential development. The defender breached that duty by failing to carry out a sufficiently thorough desktop study, targeted investigation, and comprehensive testing for solvents and organic compounds, falling below the standard of a reasonably competent environmental consultant at the relevant time.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_47
Parties
Pursuer: Angela McManus; Pursuer: Robert McManus; Defender: Scott Wilson Scotland Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/negligence / Proof Before Answer (restricted to Duty of Care and Breach)
Outcome
Defender found to owe duty of care and to have breached that duty; proof continues on causation and damages.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Contaminated Land, Remediation, Personal Injury, Expert Evidence
Tort Professional Negligence Environmental Law Duty of Care Breach of Duty Contaminated Land Remediation Personal Injury +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela McManus

Pursuer

Robert McManus

Pursuer

Scott Wilson Scotland Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/negligence / Proof Before Answer (restricted to Duty of Care and Breach)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defender owe a duty of care to the pursuers?
  2. 2 If so, was that duty breached in the investigation and remediation of contaminated land?

Ratio Decidendi

The defender owed a duty of care to the pursuers as a professional engaged to investigate and remediate contaminated land for residential development. The defender breached that duty by failing to carry out a sufficiently thorough desktop study, targeted investigation, and comprehensive testing for solvents and organic compounds, falling below the standard of a reasonably competent environmental consultant at the relevant time.

Court Disposition

Defender found to owe duty of care and to have breached that duty; proof continues on causation and damages.

Orders

  • Proof restricted to duty and breach concluded; remaining issues sisted pending further procedure.