And finally…is the angel’s share doing the devil’s work?

A Scottish couple have been give the green light to sue Diageo over their claims that the ‘angel’s share’ from one of the whisky giant’s distilleries has negatively impacted the value of their home.

Thomas and Gail Chalmers allege the evaporated alcohol from maturing casks has acted at a catalyst for an unsightly black fungus which has discoloured their home and car.

The couple, of Woodlea Gardens, Bonnybridge, in Stirlingshire, raised an action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh to sue Diageo for £100,000.



The international drinks firm sought to have the case dismissed at a procedural hearing arguing the claim was of “an unprecedented nature with the potential to have radical impacts on a major industry”, the Herald has reported.

However, a judge has now ruled the couple’s action can go ahead to a hearing of evidence.

The Chalmers say the bonded warehouse in the Woodlea Park development near where the couple own their home, releases ethanol at a level which germinates the fungus Baudoinia compniacensis – known as the “warehouse staining fungus” – which covers their property in a black coating. Something they say amounts in law to a nuisance.

They alleged that as well as weighing down the property’s value, the growth has attacked wooden garden furniture and paving stones and destroyed a sun-deck.

Announcing the court’s decision, Lord Ericht said it was essential the circumstances were fully established before a decision was made.

However, he said: “In my opinion the pursuers have pled a sufficient case to allow their averments on liability to go to proof.

“They have not pled a sufficient case on loss, but I shall give them an opportunity to seek leave to amend.”

He added: “There is no doubt that damages for nuisance can be awarded by the Scottish courts.”

Craig Connal QC, for Diageo, had argued the distiller, which ages whisky in nine bonded warehouses at the site close to the Chalmer’s home, had a long-standing operation and the Chalmers properties were “incomers”.

He said Diageo was carrying out the business with all the required permits issued by public authorities and that many of the couple’s assertions had been rejected by an independent public body.

Share icon
Share this article: