Greig v Davidson & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_44 (21 April 2015)

Greig v Davidson & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_44 (21 April 2015)

It is not contrary to substantive justice to allow the pursuer to prove both primary and alternative cases; the pleadings give adequate notice of causation; the weaker alternative rule does not apply as the primary case is unequivocal and relevant.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_44
Parties
Pursuer: Alistair Greig; Defender: Kevin Wallace Alexander Davidson; Defender: Iain Stuart Wilson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Action for Payment / Debate on Preliminary Pleas; Interlocutory Decision Allowing Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed on whole averments; defenders' plea to relevancy reserved; pursuer's plea to relevancy of defences repelled.
Legal Topics
Authority to Contract, Professional Duties of Solicitors, Alternative and Inconsistent Pleadings, Causation of Loss
Contract Law Professional Negligence Authority to Contract Professional Duties of Solicitors Alternative and Inconsistent Pleadings Causation of Loss

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alistair Greig

Pursuer

Kevin Wallace Alexander Davidson

Defender

Iain Stuart Wilson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Ordinary Action for Payment / Debate on Preliminary Pleas; Interlocutory Decision Allowing Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defenders acted without authority in concluding missives
  2. 2 Whether defenders breached professional duties of care
  3. 3 Whether alternative and inconsistent averments are permissible

Ratio Decidendi

It is not contrary to substantive justice to allow the pursuer to prove both primary and alternative cases; the pleadings give adequate notice of causation; the weaker alternative rule does not apply as the primary case is unequivocal and relevant.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed on whole averments; defenders' plea to relevancy reserved; pursuer's plea to relevancy of defences repelled.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed
  • Defenders' plea to relevancy reserved