Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
1.1 This case called before me on 31 January 2011 as a hearing under Rule 18.3 of the Ordinary Cause Rules on the Pursuers' minute of amendment number 21 of process (a corrected version of which was tendered at the bar without objection) and the Defenders' answers thereto number 22 of process.
1.2 Mr Artis for the Pursuers moved me to allow the record to be opened up and amended in terms of the minute and answers. Mr Lake moved me to refuse amendment of the record, at least in part.
2.1 The action concerns certain alterations and extensions to the Pursuers' school premises in respect of which the Defenders had been engaged as architects. The Pursuers seek damages from the Defenders for breach of contract and negligence in the performance of the contract.
3.2 Mr Lake accepted that it was a matter for my discretion whether or not to allow the amendment. He confined his submissions almost exclusively to the question of prescription and time bar.
3.3 Mr Lake maintained that the minute of amendment introduced several breaches of duty, or injuriae, and several damna which were different to what had thus far been condescended upon by the Pursuers. He took particular objection to the following:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.