Reid v Swifts Of Scarborough Ltd [1998] ScotCS 28 (15 October 1998)
The appeal was abandoned by the defenders and appellants, and the allowance of inquiry by the sheriff principal stands. The court expressed no view on the substantive legal arguments, holding that factual inquiry is necessary before legal interpretation.
- Citation
- [1998] ScotCS 28
- Parties
- Pursuer and Respondent: David Reid; Defenders and Appellants: Swifts of Scarborough Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 15 October 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Allowance of Inquiry Before Answer
- Outcome
- Appeal abandoned; allowance of inquiry stands
- Legal Topics
- Commercial Agents, Compensation on Termination, Interpretation of Regulations
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Reid
Pursuer and Respondent
Swifts of Scarborough Limited
Defenders and Appellants
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Allowance of Inquiry Before Answer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sheriff principal was correct to allow inquiry before answer regarding the right to compensation under Regulation 18(b)(ii) of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993
- 2 Whether the pleadings were sufficient regarding the reason for termination (age, infirmity or illness)
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was abandoned by the defenders and appellants, and the allowance of inquiry by the sheriff principal stands. The court expressed no view on the substantive legal arguments, holding that factual inquiry is necessary before legal interpretation.
Court Disposition
Appeal abandoned; allowance of inquiry stands
Orders
- Allowance of inquiry by the sheriff principal to stand
- Reservation of all legal arguments on either side
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment