Richardson v Quercus Limited: IHCS 24 Dec 1998

The pursuer owned a flat on the second and top floors of a building damaged by renovation works carried out by the defenders to the basement and ground floor of the same building. He relied on a letter by the defenders’ loss adjusters confirming that they had no objection to the pursuer instructing the necessary remedial works to his property but which stated that it was written ‘without prejudice to liability’.
Held: The letter with previous correspondence, amounted to a relevant acknowledgment within the section of the subsistence of an obligation to make reparation which would otherwise have been extinguished by the five year negative prescription. That subsection provides that in order to constitute a relevant acknowledgement there must be an unequivocal written admission clearly acknowledging that the obligation still subsists.
Lord Abernethy and Lord Johnston and Lord Prosser
[1998] ScotCS 112, 1999 SC 278
Bailii, ScotC
Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 10(1)
AprovedDaks Simpson Group plc v Kuiper 1994
The creditor sought summary judgment for an account for commissions earned. In a ‘without prejudice’ letter the defendant’s director said that he was prepared to accept that he had received such commissions in stated amounts.
Held: Lord . .

Cited by:
CitedBradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid HL 12-Jul-2006
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules
The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2021; Ref: scu.169718