MALCOLM THOMAS COLE v. EDWARD DUNCAN LONIE [1999] ScotSC 9 (20th April, 1999)
The obligation in paragraph 4 of the missives was a single, unitary obligation. Discovery of any breach in June 1990 started the prescriptive period for the whole obligation. The pursuer's claim was therefore prescribed before the action was raised.
- Citation
- [1999] ScotSC 9
- Parties
- Pursuer: Malcolm Thomas Cole; Defender: Edward Duncan Lonie
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor After Preliminary Proof on Prescription
- Outcome
- appeal refused; interlocutor adhered to
- Legal Topics
- Prescription, Limitation of Actions, Breach of Contract, Lease Obligations
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Malcolm Thomas Cole
Pursuer
Edward Duncan Lonie
Defender
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor After Preliminary Proof on Prescription
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the pursuer's claim for breach of contract had prescribed under section 6 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
- 2 Whether the obligation in paragraph 4 of the missives was a single or multiple obligation for prescription purposes
- 3 When the prescriptive period began to run under section 11(3) of the 1973 Act
Ratio Decidendi
The obligation in paragraph 4 of the missives was a single, unitary obligation. Discovery of any breach in June 1990 started the prescriptive period for the whole obligation. The pursuer's claim was therefore prescribed before the action was raised.
Court Disposition
appeal refused; interlocutor adhered to
Orders
- Appeal refused
- Interlocutor of 1 December 1998 adhered to
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment