McCluskey (Appellant) v Scott Wilson Scotland Limited (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Appeal
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0006

Parties

Appellant(s)

Laura McCluskey

Respondent(s)

Scott Wilson Scotland Limited

Issue

Does the finding that the Respondent environmental consultant firm fulfilled its duty of care owed to the residents of a housing development, made in the lead action of a cohort of 76 claims, justify sustaining a plea of res judicata against the Appellant?

Facts

The Appellant is the resident of a house in a development that was built on contaminated land. The Respondent is the successor to a firm of engineers whose role was to investigate the ground conditions of the development site. The Appellant argues that the Respondent breached duties of care owed to future residents of the houses in respect of the investigation and remediation of contamination at the site. She alleges that she sustained personal injury from exposure to contaminated materials. In 2012, the Appellant and 75 other residents brought claims against the Respondent and two other defendants. The Outer House of the Court of Session, via Practice Direction No. 1 of 2013, stayed all the claims apart from one – McManus – which was allowed to proceed against the Respondent only. The Outer House dismissed the claim following a trial of the issues of duty of care and breach of duty, on the basis that the Respondent had fulfilled its duty of care. The scope of proof had been limited to duty and breach because of a conflict of interest on the part of one of the expert witnesses due to give evidence on causation and loss. McManus appealed to the Inner House, which dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court refused an application for leave to appeal in 2022. The stay on the Appellant’s case was lifted in 2023. The Respondent raised arguments of res judicata, relevancy and abuse of process in light of McManus. The Outer House dismissed those arguments and allowed the case to proceed to trial. The Respondent appealed to the Inner House, which allowed the appeal on the issue of res judicata and dismissed the Appellant’s case. The Inner House refused permission to appeal. The Appellant now applies for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.