LORETTO HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD AGAINST CRUDEN BUILDING & RENEWALS LTD AND OTHERS [2019] ScotCS CSOH_78 (10 October 2019)

LORETTO HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD AGAINST CRUDEN BUILDING & RENEWALS LTD AND OTHERS [2019] ScotCS CSOH_78 (10 October 2019)

The pursuer's and contractors' averments regarding error induced by conduct and the causal link between breaches and payments are suitable for inquiry and cannot be dismissed as irrelevant at this stage. It is not clear on the pleadings that the claims are bound to fail, and prescription cannot be determined without factual inquiry. The court refuses to dismiss the pursuer's claim and the contractors' claims for contribution, allowing them to proceed to proof.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_78
Parties
Pursuer: Loretto Housing Association Limited; First Defender: Cruden Building & Renewals Limited; Second Defender: Cameron & Ross Limited; First Third Party: The former firm of Cooper Cromar (Tom Cromar, David Gordon Dool, Alan Watson Stark); Second Third Party: Sheila Bunton, formerly trading as John Arnott Associates; Third Third Party: Brian Michael Brown; Fourth Third Party: James Shaw
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Construction Damages Action / Debate on Relevancy and Prescription
Outcome
Claims not dismissed; cases suitable for inquiry; proof allowed.
Legal Topics
Prescription of Obligations, Contribution Among Joint Wrongdoers, Breach of Contract, Latent Defects, Error Induced by Conduct, Certification and Payment in Construction Contracts
Construction Law Contract Law Scots Law Prescription and Limitation Prescription of Obligations Contribution Among Joint Wrongdoers Breach of Contract Latent Defects +2 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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loretto Housing Association Limited

Pursuer

Cruden Building & Renewals Limited

First Defender

Cameron & Ross Limited

Second Defender

The former firm of Cooper Cromar (Tom Cromar, David Gordon Dool, Alan Watson Stark)

First Third Party

Sheila Bunton, formerly trading as John Arnott Associates

Second Third Party

Brian Michael Brown

Third Third Party

James Shaw

Fourth Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Construction Damages Action / Debate on Relevancy and Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Has the pursuer's claim for damages against the engineer, architect, clerk of works, and contractor prescribed under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973?
  2. 2 Are the contractors entitled to contribution from the engineer, architect, and clerk of works under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940?
  3. 3 Does error induced by conduct suspend the prescriptive period under section 6(4) of the 1973 Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's and contractors' averments regarding error induced by conduct and the causal link between breaches and payments are suitable for inquiry and cannot be dismissed as irrelevant at this stage. It is not clear on the pleadings that the claims are bound to fail, and prescription cannot be determined without factual inquiry. The court refuses to dismiss the pursuer's claim and the contractors' claims for contribution, allowing them to proceed to proof.

Court Disposition

Claims not dismissed; cases suitable for inquiry; proof allowed.

Orders

  • Refusal to dismiss pursuer's claim against engineer and contractors' claims for contribution against engineer, architect, and clerk of works.
  • Case proceeds to proof on prescription and error issues.