Supersave Mini Market & Ors v Walters Holland (Life & Pensions) Ltd & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_48 (26 March 2008)

Supersave Mini Market & Ors v Walters Holland (Life & Pensions) Ltd & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_48 (26 March 2008)

The pursuers' averments are sufficient to entitle them to proof. The defenders' arguments on non-disclosure, fraud, specification of loss, and mitigation are rejected. The case should proceed to proof, with amendment allowed regarding fixtures and fittings.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_48
Parties
Pursuer: Supersave Mini Market and Others; First Defender: Walters Holland (Life and Pensions) Limited; Second Defender: [Second Defender: Director and employee of first defenders]
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll on Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
Defenders' preliminary pleas repelled; pursuers allowed to amend; case to proceed to proof.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Professional Negligence, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Mitigation of Loss
Insurance Law Contract Law Tort/delict Breach of Contract Professional Negligence Fraudulent Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Mitigation 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supersave Mini Market and Others

Pursuer

Walters Holland (Life and Pensions) Limited

First Defender

[Second Defender: Director and employee of first defenders]

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll on Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders failed in their duty as insurance brokers to disclose material facts and obtain insurance for the property.
  2. 2 Whether the second defender committed fraud by misrepresenting the insurance status of the property.
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers' averments of loss and causation are sufficiently specific.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' averments are sufficient to entitle them to proof. The defenders' arguments on non-disclosure, fraud, specification of loss, and mitigation are rejected. The case should proceed to proof, with amendment allowed regarding fixtures and fittings.

Court Disposition

Defenders' preliminary pleas repelled; pursuers allowed to amend; case to proceed to proof.

Orders

  • Repel first and second pleas in law for first defender.
  • Repel first, second, and third pleas for second defender.