G.U.S. Property Management Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Diplock,Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Keith of Kinkel,Lord Roskill,Lord Brightman |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] UKHL J0617-2 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Docket Number | No. 7. |
| Date | 17 June 1982 |
[1982] UKHL J0617-2
House of Lords
Lord Diplock
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Keith of Kinkel
Lord Roskill
Lord Brightman
My Lords,
For the reasons given in a speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel with which I agree I too would allow the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech about to be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel. I agree with it, and for the reasons given by him I would allow the appeal.
My Lords,
The action with which this appeal is concerned arises out of events which took place in late 1970 and early 1971. At that time a company called Rest Property Company Limited ("Rest"), which was and still is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Great Universal Stores Limited ("G.U.S."), was heritable proprietor of a building in Queen Street, Glasgow. The first defenders in the action ("Littlewoods") were proprietors of an adjacent heritable property in Miller Street, Glasgow. Littlewoods arranged to have certain building operations carried out on their property. These involved the employment of a firm of structural engineers, who are the second defenders, and of main contractors, who are the fourth defenders. The latter in turn engaged nominated sub-contractors for specialised piling work, and the sub-contractors are the third defenders. This piling work, so the pursuers allege, was carried out negligently, with the result that serious structural damage was caused to the adjoining building then owned by Rest. The action, which was raised in July 1976, claims damages in delict from all the defenders jointly and severally as being in varying ways responsible for the damage to the building. The case against the second defenders has been held irrelevant upon grounds which have nothing to do with the issues in this appeal, and they have been dismissed from the action.
In April 1972 G.U.S. adopted a policy under which all freehold, feued and long leasehold properties in the G.U.S. group of companies which were held for investment purposes were to be transferred to a newly created wholly owned subsidiary company. That subsidiary company is the pursuer company, the appellants in this appeal. In pursuance of that policy, the building in Queen Street was conveyed by Rest to the pursuers by Disposition dated 14th March 1975, the price paid being therein stated to be £259,618·45, which was the figure of value at which the building stood in the books of Rest. On 15th June 1976 Rest granted an assignation in favour of the pursuers of all claims competent to Rest arising out of the building operations carried out by Littlewoods at Miller Street. That is how the action came to be raised, shortly afterwards, in the name of the pursuers and not in that of Rest.
In the matter of measure of damages, the pursuers' claim is pleaded upon alternative bases. The first is that the value of the building in its damaged state at the time of the defenders' operations was £300,000, whereas its value in an undamaged state at the same time would have been £650,000, the claim on this basis being to the difference between these two sums, namely £350,000. The second basis is that of the cost of repairing the damage to the building, and in this connection the pursuers aver that they themselves after the conveyance to them of the property but before the assignation in their favour of Rest's claim, expended sums amounting to about £55,450 on reinstatement work and professional fees, to which they would add a further as yet unquantified figure for legal fees and loss of rent during the execution of the work.
The third and fourth defenders tabled pleas of no title to sue and also general pleas to the relevancy of the pursuers' averments. For some reason the first defenders did not plead no title to sue, though it would appear that such a plea, if capable of being validly advanced by the third and fourth defenders, would have equally availed the first defenders.
The Lord Ordinary (Lord Stewart) repelled the pleas of no title to sue and allowed a proof before answer against all but the second defenders, but the First Division (The Lord President, Lords Cameron and Stott), by interlocutor dated 12th March 1981, allowed a reclaiming motion by the third and fourth defenders and sustained these pleas, together with the pleas to relevancy, which they regarded as associated. Against that interlocutor the pursuers now appeal to this House.
As was rightly said by the Lord President in giving the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Britned Development Ltd v ABB AB
...closing submissions. 624 See paragraph 524(2) above. 625 Notably, GUS Property Management Ltd v. Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd 1982 SLT 533; Linden Gardens Ltd v. Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85; Darlington Borough Council v. Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 68; Offer-Hoa......
-
Offer-Hoar v Larkstore Ltd
...of the assignment. And it is established by Dawson v. Great Northern & City Railway Co [1905] 1 KB 260; see also GUS Property Management Ltd v. Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd [1982] SLT 533 by Lord Keith of Kinkel at page 538, cited later in this judgment [pp 89–90]. But in a case such a......
-
Offer-Hoar v Larkstore Ltd
... ... The First Defendant Larkstore Limited, a property development company, is the freehold owner of the ... from Technotrade Limited, whether by Court order or judgment or by compromise or otherwise and ... Mr Pelling placed reliance upon a passage in GUS Property Management [1982] SLT (HL) at 583 a ... ...
-
Orchard Plaza Management Company Ltd v Balfour Beatty Regional Construction Ltd
...51 Mummery LJ then turned to consider the authorities: Dawson supra, GUS Property Management Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd 1982 SC (HL) 157 and Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (1992) 57 BLR 57 (CA). Importantly, he explained the case of Dawson in the follow......
-
Table of Cases
...ECHR 349, 355 Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965), US Sup Ct 387 GUS Property Management Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd (1982) SC (HL) 157, 1982 SLT 533, HL 101 Hague v Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 US 496 (1939), US Sup Ct 385 Hammond v Mitchell [1991] 1 WLR 112......
-
Upholding Contractual Intentions Lord Denning's Dissent in Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446
...1 AC 85. 82 Darlington BC v Wiltshier Northern Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 68. 83 GUS Property Management Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd 1982 SC (HL) 157 at 177 (quoting the Lord Ordinary). 84 It is possible to read the House of Lords’ decision in Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown L......
-
Contract Law
...v Cheong Kok Leong [2016] SGHC 263 at [67]. 73 Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed. 74 GUS Property Management Ltd v Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd [1982] SLT 533 (HL). 75 Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd [2001] 1 AC 518. The requirements for the “narrow ground” derived from the case of ......
-
Reconsidering Transferred Loss
...ibid, 114.22 Offer-Hoar vLarkstore Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 2926 at [84]-[86].23 GUS Property Management Ltd vLittlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd 1982 SLT 533, 538.24 Panat own n 9 above, 575.25 Swynson n1aboveat[16].Seealso,tothesameeffect,Chitty on Contracts (London: Sweet &Maxwell, 33rd ed, 2018) ......