Tilbury Douglas Construction Limited (Appellant) v Ove Arup & Partners Scotland Limited (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2024/1003

Parties

Appellant(s)

Tilbury Douglas Construction Limited

Respondent(s)

Ove Arup & Partners Scotland Limited

Issue

The correct interpretation of sections 6(4) and 11(3) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (as prior to amendments made by the Prescription Act 2018)

Facts

This appeal concerns the application of Scots law statutory rules on ‘prescription’ (i.e. the basis on which potential claims can no longer be brought once a certain amount of time has passed). TDC was the principal contractor engaged – on the basis of a fixed-price contract – to prepare a former railway yard for development. Arup had previously been appointed to provide the design for these enabling works. TDC alleges that Arup – in breach of its contractual obligations and its duty of care to exercise skill, care and diligence – produced a defective design that could not be implemented (namely due to poor assumptions as to pre-existing brickwork). As a result, TDC is seeking compensation from Arup as to the costs of (and flowing from) having the works redesigned. TDC began its claim in July 2019. At a preliminary proof (hearing), Arup argued that the claim against it was prescribed (time barred) under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (as prior to the amendments contained in the Prescription (Scotland) Act 2018) (the “Act”), which stipulates a general five-year time limit within which claims must be brought. The judge sided with TDC: the claims were not time-barred, namely due to the exception to the general rule provided for by s. 6(4). Arup successfully reclaimed (appealed) that decision. TDC now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

6 November 2024

Case origin

PTA

Back to top