Buchan v. Bruce [2007] ScotSC 40 (16 August 2007)

Buchan v. Bruce [2007] ScotSC 40 (16 August 2007)

The pursuer could, with reasonable diligence, have become aware by December 1999 that the loss or damage was caused by an act, neglect or default giving rise to an obligation to make reparation. The five-year prescriptive period expired before the action was raised in February 2006, so the claim is time-barred.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 40
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Alice Buchan; Defender: Mr Ian Bruce
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Prescription (limitation)
Outcome
action dismissed as time-barred (prescribed)
Legal Topics
Prescription, Limitation of Actions, Reparation, Building Contracts
Civil Procedure Contract Law Prescription Limitation of Actions Reparation Building Contracts

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Alice Buchan

Pursuer

Mr Ian Bruce

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Prescription (limitation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claim for damages against the defender for defective building work is time-barred under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer could, with reasonable diligence, have become aware by December 1999 that the loss or damage was caused by an act, neglect or default giving rise to an obligation to make reparation. The five-year prescriptive period expired before the action was raised in February 2006, so the claim is time-barred.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as time-barred (prescribed)

Orders

  • Sustains the defender's plea-in-law No. 2 and dismisses the action.
  • Reserves the question of expenses and fixes a hearing on expenses.