K2 Restaurants Ltd v Glasgow City Council & Ors

First Defenders: Dunlop; Balfour & Manson, W.S. (For Hennessy Bowie & Co, Glasgow)

[4 ] In essence the pursuers divide their case of negligence against the first defenders into two parts. First of all they aver that the first defenders had duties of reasonable care to ensure that the demolition works were executed and completed in a reasonable and safe manner, and to leave the remaining gable wall in a safe state, having regard to the protection of property adjacent, including that belonging to the pursuers. They were also under a duty of reasonable care to inspect the condition of the buildings adjacent to the building which had been demolished.

[11 ] Dealing briefly with the first two points raised by the defenders, Mr McGregor noted that the first defenders has submitted that they had no responsibility for the work done by the second defenders and there were no averments of special circumstances which would make the first defenders so responsible. Mr McGregor accepted the force of this submission and sought leave to amend on that matter. He argued that the note of arguments which had been lodged in this case makes no reference to this point and that it had not been raised previously.

[13 ] However, Mr McGregor maintained that was not the end of the pursuers' case. The question of tying in the brickwork to the roof void of an adjoining building was only one of three remedies available. The other two remaining remedies involved the removal of the brickwork from the roof level to the third floor ceiling level, or alternatively the erection of retaining scaffolding with a fan guard. Both of these remedial works, in his submission, would have been covered by the existing section 13 notice.