Whisky giant Diageo sued over ‘angel’s share’ fungus
A couple who claim the “angel’s share” of evaporated alcohol from a whisky bond has blighted their Scottish property have secured a ruling allowing them to proceed with suing a distilling giant.
Thomas and Gail Chalmers maintain the vapour has caused damage to outdoor furniture and their house in Bonnybridge, Stirlingshire, and the value of the property has been diminished.
They are suing Diageo Scotland for £40,000 in an action at the Court of Session. The firm previously tried to have the claim dismissed but a judge rejected the move and following further procedure a secondjudgehasallowedthecase to go to an evidential hearing.
Lord Tyre said: “In my opinion the pursuers [the Chalmers] have given sufficient notice of costs and other losses which, if all were to be established in evidence, might amount to the sum sued for or thereabouts.”
He added: “My view as just stated should not, of course, be interpreted as the expression of any opinion as to the likelihood of the pursuers succeeding on liability or, if they do so succeed, on their prospects of recovering the whole of the damages that they seek.”
In the action the couple, from Woodlea Gardens, claim the “nuisance” of ethanol vapour, given off as whisky matures, in the atmosphere has caused a black fungus on houses in the area.
They maintain the value of their house has been reduced by about 5 to 10 per cent because of the effects of the fungus on properties. They bought the new-build for nearly £140,000 in 2002 and in May 2017 its value was about £190,000 to £195,000.
It is said in the action that Mr Chalmers cleaned the back of the house once a year and has found through trial and error that thin bleach works best, with 16 bottles needed for the task.
The couple said their cars are also effected by the fungus. Each vehicle needs to be valeted at least once and sometimes twice a year at a cost of about £100 a time.
They also maintain they are restricted in the colour of paint they can use in their garden, having to choose colours which try to reduce the visual impact of the black fungus.
Diageoclaimstheblackening complained of does not cause serious disturbance, substantial inconvenience or materialdamageandproperty values are not impacted.
The case came back before Lord Tyre for a debate because Diageo maintained the couple had still failed to state a relevant and sufficiently specific case over the quantification of their alleged loss and damage.