Dundee City Council, Angus Council And Perth And Kinross Council Carrying On Business Under The Name And Style Of Tayside Contracts Against D Geddes (contractors) Limited
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Doherty |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] CSOH 108 |
| Docket Number | CA71/14 |
| Date | 18 August 2017 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 18 August 2017 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2017] CSOH 108
CA71/14
OPINION OF LORD DOHERTY
In the cause
DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL, ANGUS COUNCIL and PERTH AND KINROSS COUNCIL,
carrying on business together under the name and style of TAYSIDE CONTRACTS
Pursuers
against
D GEDDES (CONTRACTORS) LIMITED
Defender
Pursuers: Howie QC, R Anderson; Gillespie Macandrew LLP
Defender: Ellis QC, Balfour; BLM
18 August 2017
Introduction
[1] The pursuers are a combination of local authorities carrying on business under the
name and style of Tayside Contracts. In the summer of 2010 the pursuers carried out surface
dressing works on a number of roads for Dundee City Council, Angus Council, Perth and
Kinross Council (“the constituent councils”) and for Falkirk Council. The pursuers
purchased from the defender the aggregate chippings they used for those works. Many of
the works failed in early course.
2
[2] In this commercial action the pursuers attribute those failures to the chippings which
the defender supplied. They maintain that the chippings were not of satisfactory quality
and that they were not fit for the purpose of use as surface dressing on roads in eastern
Scotland; and that as a result the defender was in breach of the terms implied into the
contracts of sale by sections 14(2) and 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. They seek
damages in respect of those breaches.
[3] The previous procedure in the present action included two debates. Following the
first debate the defender’s plea to the competency of the action was repelled (Tayside
Contracts v D Geddes (Contractors) Ltd 2014 SLT 764). The outcome of the second debate was
that on 18 November 2014 certain of the defender’s averments were excluded from
probation. Sundry procedure thereafter included amendment of the pleadings. A proof
before answer restricted to the issue of liability was set down to take place on four days in
June 2015, but it was discharged on the defender’s motion less than two weeks before the
diet was to commence. A diet of four days commencing on 1 March 2016 was assigned in its
place. The diet began on 1 March 2016 before Lord Jones. On that day the evidence of the
pursuers’ first witness, Mr Cranney, was completed, but on the joint motion of the parties
the case was then adjourned until 9 June 2016 and the five following days (senior counsel for
the pursuer was ill and it had also become clear that the case would not be completed in the
four days which had been allocated to it). Sadly, Lord Jones died on 12 March 2016. The
continued diet of proof was set down to proceed on 16 May 2017 and the following
five days. A transcript of Mr Cranney’s evidence was prepared (53 of process). Parties were
agreed that it was unnecessary that Mr Cranney be recalled.
[4] Shortly before the resumption of the continued proof the pursuers were allowed to
further amend their pleadings and to add Professor Gordon Airey as an additional witness.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Mg Construction Limited Against Agd Equipment Limited
...of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (Watters v The Masters Golf Co Limited [2013] CSOH 126; Tayside Contracts v D Geddes (Contractors Limited) 2017 CSOH 108). Having regard to the absence of evidence from Mr Jack, the fact that the part was not available for inspection and other factors, the purs......
1 books & journal articles
-
Litigation
...Ean J; George Leslie Ltd v Halcrow Group Ltd [2017] CSOH 106 at [31], per Lord Tyre; Dundee City Council v D Geddes (Contractors) Ltd [2017] CSOH 108 at [62]–[72], per Lord Doherty; Contact (Print & Packaging) Ltd v Travelers Insurance Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 83 (TCC) at [142]–[144], per HHJ Ste......