DENNIS TAYLOR v. RICHARD A SANDEMAN [2011] ScotSC 155 (05 October 2011)

DENNIS TAYLOR v. RICHARD A SANDEMAN [2011] ScotSC 155 (05 October 2011)

The pursuer sustained immediate and measurable loss at the time of the disposition in May 1997, when the land was wrongly conveyed and the benefit of a third-party sale was lost. This triggered the start of the five-year prescriptive period under section 11(1) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Any subsequent expenses or losses were consequential and did not delay prescription. The claim was not raised until January 2011 and is therefore prescribed.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 155
Parties
Pursuer: Dennis Taylor; Defender: Richard A Sandeman
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence, Breach of Contract) / Debate on Preliminary Pleas (prescription and Relevancy)
Outcome
Action dismissed as prescribed.
Legal Topics
Prescription (limitation of Actions), Solicitor's Duty of Care, Damages, Rectification of Disposition
Contract Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Prescription (limitation of Actions) Solicitor's Duty of Care Damages Rectification of Disposition

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Taylor

Pursuer

Richard A Sandeman

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence, Breach of Contract) / Debate on Preliminary Pleas (prescription and Relevancy)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the pursuer's loss occur for the purposes of prescription under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973?
  2. 2 Has the pursuer's claim prescribed under the five-year negative prescription period?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer sustained immediate and measurable loss at the time of the disposition in May 1997, when the land was wrongly conveyed and the benefit of a third-party sale was lost. This triggered the start of the five-year prescriptive period under section 11(1) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. Any subsequent expenses or losses were consequential and did not delay prescription. The claim was not raised until January 2011 and is therefore prescribed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as prescribed.

Orders

  • Case continued to a hearing for formal disposal and determination of expenses; all questions of expenses reserved.