Loretto Housing Association Limited Against Cruden Building & Renewals Limited And Others
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Doherty |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] CSOH 78 |
| Docket Number | CA16/18 |
| Date | 10 October 2019 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 10 October 2019 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2019] CSOH 78
CA16/18
OPINION OF LORD DOHERTY
In the cause
LORETTO HOUSING ASSOCIATION LIMITED
Pursuer
against
(FIRST) CRUDEN BUILDING & RENEWALS LIMITED
(SECOND) CAMERON & ROSS LIMITED
Defenders
and
(FIRST) The former firm of COOPER CROMAR, having former partners TOM CROMAR;
DAVID GORDON DOOL; and ALAN WATSON STARK
(SECOND) SHEILA BUNTON, formerly trading as JOHN ARNOTT ASSOCIATES
(THIRD) BRIAN MICHAEL BROWN
(FOURTH) JAMES SHAW
Third Parties
Pursuer: Thomson QC, Hamilton; Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP
First Defender: Howie QC, Gardiner; TC Young LLP
Second Defender: Walker QC, Broome; Clyde & Co
First Third Parties: Bowen QC; DWF LLP
Second Third Party: Manson; Anderson Strathern LLP
10 October 2019
Introduction
[1] This is yet another case involving a construction project where issues arise whether
obligations to make reparation have been extinguished by prescription.
2
The pleadings and the history of the action
[2] The pursuer, a housing association, wished to redevelop and convert the former
Duke Street Hospital, Glasgow (a four storey building built in about 1904) to form
17 residential flats and a day centre. In 1997 it engaged the second defender as the structural
engineer, and the first third parties as the architect. The contract with the second defender
incorporated the Association of Consulting Engineers Conditions of Engagement (“the ACE
Conditions”). In 1999 the pursuer engaged the first defender as the contractors and the
second third party as clerk of works. In order to assist intelligibility I will refer for the most
part to the first defender as “the contractors”, to the second defender as “the engineer”, to
the first third parties as “the architect”, and to the second third party as “the clerk of works”.
The engineer and the architect designed the works to be carried out by the contractors.
Those works involved the retention and refurbishment of the existing facades and roof of
the building and the demolition and replacement of its interior.
[3] The contractors began to carry out the contract works on site in 1999, although the
pursuer and the contractors did not enter into the formal written building contract until
10 October 2000. The building contract took the form of the SBCC Scottish Building Contract
With Quantities (April 1998 Revision). On 25 October 2000 a certificate of practical
completion of the contract works was issued to the contractors by the architect. A certificate
of making good defects was issued to the contractors by the architect on 23 May 2002.
[4] During the course of the works between 1999 and 2001 the architect issued interim
valuation certificates to the contractors certifying the value of work done. In about 2001,
after the works had been completed, the architect issued a final certificate certifying the
value of the contract work. In terms of the building contract the pursuer was obliged to
make payment of sums certified and it did so.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Wph Developments Limited V Young & Gault Llp (in Liquidation)
...in the kind of awkward legal acrobatics that are illustrated in Loretto Housing Association v Cruden Building & Renewals Ltd & Others [2019] CSOH 78. In that case, the creditor was aware that it had incurred expenditure, but it had no actual or constructive awareness that it was wasted expe......
-
T.a Millard (scotland) Limited Against Trustees Of The Cardrona Charitable Trust And The Highland Council
...v Lime Rock Management LLP 2021 SLT 35 at paragraphs [73] to [74]; and Loretto Housing Association Ltd v Cruden B uilding & Renewals Ltd [2019] CSOH 78 at paragraph [55]. Submissions for the Respondent [14] The respondent submitted that the appellant’s criticism of the sheriff for allegedly......