Hayman v Dingley [1998] ScotCS 73 (20 November 1998)

The pleadings, though inelegant and factually difficult, were not so deficient as to justify dismissal; a proof before answer was allowed to determine the existence and termination of the agency relationship.

Citation: [1998] ScotCS 73
Parties: Pursuer: William Hayman; Defender: Keith Dingley
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 20 November 1998
Procedural Posture: Civil / Procedure Roll (pleading Debate)
Outcome: Proof before answer allowed; case not dismissed.
Legal Topics: Commercial Agency, Contract Formation, Termination of Agency, Damages Under Commercial Agents (council Directive) Regulations 1993

Commercial Law Contract Law Commercial Agency Contract Formation Termination of Agency Damages Under Commercial Agents (council Directive) Regulations 1993

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

William Hayman

Pursuer

Keith Dingley

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll (pleading Debate)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the pleadings disclose a relevant case of a contractual relationship of commercial agent and principal
2 Whether the pleadings regarding termination and quantification of damages are sufficiently specific
3 Interpretation of 'damages' under Regulation 17 of the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; case not dismissed.

Orders

Proof before answer on the existence and termination of the agency relationship allowed.
Quantification of damages and possible reference to the European Court deferred until after proof.