MacKay & Ors v Edmond [2008] ScotCS CSOH_92 (19 June 2008)

MacKay & Ors v Edmond [2008] ScotCS CSOH_92 (19 June 2008)

The proper measure of damages for delayed tax payment is the interest that would have been earned on sums not paid when properly due; pursuers' pleadings are sufficiently relevant to allow proof before answer. Delay in proceedings, though inordinate, is not inexcusable given the complexity and ongoing investigations; no added element of unfairness justifies dismissal. Prescription argument regarding amended averments is not sustained due to procedural timing.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_92
Parties
Pursuer: Ranald Durness MacKay; Pursuer: Mrs Moyra Agnes Isabella MacKay; Pursuer: Mrs Sheena MacKay; Defender: James M Edmond
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Procedure Roll Debate
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; defender's third and fourth pleas-in-law repelled; defender liable in expenses of Procedure Roll debate.
Legal Topics
Accountant's Duty of Care, Tax Planning Advice, Delay in Litigation, Prescription and Limitation, Calculation of Damages
Professional Negligence Tax Law Contract Law Accountant's Duty of Care Tax Planning Advice Delay in Litigation Prescription and Limitation Calculation of Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ranald Durness MacKay

Pursuer

Mrs Moyra Agnes Isabella MacKay

Pursuer

Mrs Sheena MacKay

Pursuer

James M Edmond

Defender

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Procedure Roll Debate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuers' averments of loss are relevant and sufficiently specified
  2. 2 Whether certain averments are prescribed
  3. 3 Whether delay in proceedings justifies dismissal or absolvitor

Ratio Decidendi

The proper measure of damages for delayed tax payment is the interest that would have been earned on sums not paid when properly due; pursuers' pleadings are sufficiently relevant to allow proof before answer. Delay in proceedings, though inordinate, is not inexcusable given the complexity and ongoing investigations; no added element of unfairness justifies dismissal. Prescription argument regarding amended averments is not sustained due to procedural timing.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; defender's third and fourth pleas-in-law repelled; defender liable in expenses of Procedure Roll debate.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed
  • Defender's third plea-in-law repelled by consent