ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY Ltd AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS & Ors [2015] ScotCS CSOH_21 (17 February 2015)

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY Ltd AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS & Ors [2015] ScotCS CSOH_21 (17 February 2015)

The pursuers' pleadings against the first defenders are sufficient to merit inquiry on the merits for nuisance and fault, including interdict and damages, subject to clarification of damages claims. The case against the second defender is irrelevant and lacking specification, as there is no averment of migration of contaminants during its ownership nor sufficient causal connection. Issues of fact and degree require proof before final determination.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_21
Parties
Pursuer: Esso Petroleum Company Limited; Pursuer: ROC UK Limited; Defender: The Scottish Ministers; Defender: Brenntag Inorganic Chemicals Limited; Defender: Interlink M74 JV; Defender: Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited; Defender: Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited; Defender: Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) PLC; Defender: Sir Robert McAlpine Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Debate on Relevancy (pleadings)
Outcome
Case to proceed to inquiry against first defenders; case against second defender dismissed as irrelevant; pursuers given opportunity to amend damages averments.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Contaminated Land, Vicarious Liability, Damages, Interdict, Specific Implement
Environmental Law Property Law Delict/tort Nuisance Contaminated Land Vicarious Liability Damages Interdict +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Esso Petroleum Company Limited

Pursuer

ROC UK Limited

Pursuer

The Scottish Ministers

Defender

Brenntag Inorganic Chemicals Limited

Defender

Interlink M74 JV

Defender

Galliford Try Infrastructure Limited

Defender

Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited

Defender

Morgan Sindall (Infrastructure) PLC

Defender

Sir Robert McAlpine Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Debate on Relevancy (pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuers pled a relevant case for inquiry against first and second defenders for nuisance and fault
  2. 2 Whether interdict or specific implement is competent against the Scottish Ministers under Crown Proceedings Act 1947
  3. 3 Adequacy and specification of damages claims

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings against the first defenders are sufficient to merit inquiry on the merits for nuisance and fault, including interdict and damages, subject to clarification of damages claims. The case against the second defender is irrelevant and lacking specification, as there is no averment of migration of contaminants during its ownership nor sufficient causal connection. Issues of fact and degree require proof before final determination.

Court Disposition

Case to proceed to inquiry against first defenders; case against second defender dismissed as irrelevant; pursuers given opportunity to amend damages averments.

Orders

  • Put out case by order to discuss interlocutor and further procedure.
  • Minute of abandonment for second pursuer to be dealt with.