(first) Robert James Franks And Others Against Peter Inglis Rias Riba
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff L Drummond QC |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] SC PER 41 |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 21 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | PER-CA28-18 |
| Published date | 21 June 2021 |
SHERIFFDOM OF TAYSIDE CENTRAL AND FIFE AT PERTH
[2021] SC PER 41
PER-CA28-18
JUDGMENT OF SHERIFF L DRUMMOND QC
in the cause
(FIRST) ROBERT JAMES FRANKS, (SECOND) JAMES YUK MAN FUNG, (THIRD) VALY
OSSMAN, (FOURTH) QIANWEN ZHU, (FIFTH) MOHAMMED FAWAZ OSSMAN,
(SIXTH) MOHOMAD SHAFI SACOOR and SAMEERA NIAZ SACOOR, (SEVENTH)
MHAIRI CHRISTINA CORMACK and (EIGHTH) ZHI HAO CHEN
Pursuers
against
PETE R INGLIS RIAS RIBA
Defender
Pursuer: MacColl QC; Thorntons, solicitors
Defender: Manson, Advocate; Kennedys, solicitors
21 May 2021
Interlocutor:
The Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause, sustains the first, second and third
pleas in law for the defender; and assoilzies the defender on the basis that the purported
obligation s founded on by the pursuers have been extin guished by the operation of
prescription; sanctions the cause as suitable for the employment of counsel and reserves
expenses meantime.
Background
[1] This is an action brought by the pursuers alleging professional negligence of the
defender wh o is an architect. The pursuers are owners of 8 flats at [ ] Dundee (“the
flats”). The flats were built in 2012 and 2013. The defender was engaged to provide
architectur al services to the developer of the flats in connection with the design and
supervision of their construction. The pursuers claim that the flats are affected by a number
of defects. They sue the defender as architect in delict. Th e costs of remedial works, aside
from decant costs and professional fees is averred as £2,684,009.18 with each pursuer to bear
a proportion ate share of that figure. The pursuers accept there is no contract between the
defender an d the pursuers. Their claim in delict is founded upon professional consultant’s
certificates (PCC’s) provided by the defender. Th e case came before me for debate on
22 February 2021 on the defender’s preliminary pleas.
The defender’s submissions
[2] The defender invited the court to sustain the first, second and third pleas in law for
the defender an d assoilzie the defender on the basis that the action has prescribed or dismiss
the action. The pursuers should be found jointly and severally liable to the defender in the
expenses of th e action. The defender submitted that the pursuers’ case is irrelevant, that the
claims have prescribed and that material parts of the pleadings are lacking in specification.
The scope of the duty
[3] The pursuers base their case on the duties owed by the defender under the PCCs.
However, they make averments which go beyond the scope of any duty set out in the PCCs.
The pursuers aver in article 5 of condescendence that “By way of the PCCs, the defender
To continue reading
Request your trial