Luss Estates Company v GB Garman & Co & Hutchison & Craft Ltd [1999] ScotCS 144 (11 June 1999)

Luss Estates Company v GB Garman & Co & Hutchison & Craft Ltd [1999] ScotCS 144 (11 June 1999)

The pursuers' averments against the second defenders, both on the merits and as to loss, are sufficiently relevant to merit an enquiry. The issues of duty of care, breach, causation, and loss require proof before answer and cannot be determined at this stage.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 144
Parties
Pursuer: Luss Estates Company; First Defender: G. B. Garman & Co; Second Defender: Hutchison & Craft Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil (damages/negligence) / Interlocutory (plea to Relevancy; Order for Proof Before Answer)
Outcome
Proof before answer ordered; first plea-in-law for pursuers repelled (not insisted in); all other pleas standing.
Legal Topics
Broker's Duty of Care, Misrepresentation, Causation of Loss, Agency, Material Non Disclosure
Insurance Law Tort Law Professional Negligence Broker's Duty of Care Misrepresentation Causation of Loss Agency Material Non Disclosure

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luss Estates Company

Pursuer

G. B. Garman & Co

First Defender

Hutchison & Craft Ltd

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (damages/negligence) / Interlocutory (plea to Relevancy; Order for Proof Before Answer)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether second defenders (insurance brokers) owed a duty of care to pursuers in transmitting information to insurers
  2. 2 Whether second defenders' alleged misrepresentation or failure to exercise reasonable care caused or materially contributed to pursuers' uninsured loss
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings disclosed a relevant case against the second defenders justifying proof

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' averments against the second defenders, both on the merits and as to loss, are sufficiently relevant to merit an enquiry. The issues of duty of care, breach, causation, and loss require proof before answer and cannot be determined at this stage.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer ordered; first plea-in-law for pursuers repelled (not insisted in); all other pleas standing.

Orders

  • Order for proof before answer on all issues except first plea-in-law for pursuers, which is repelled.