Kane v. Pearl Assurance Plc [2004] ScotCS 86 (02 April 2004)

Kane v. Pearl Assurance Plc [2004] ScotCS 86 (02 April 2004)

Except for the pursuer's averment of subjective intention, the new averments regarding pre-contract negotiations and matters of submission are not plainly irrelevant and are allowed to stand for proof before answer, as they may legitimately establish the factual background against which the COT3 agreement was reached.

Citation
[2004] ScotCS 86
Parties
Pursuer: James Aloysius Kane; Defenders: Pearl Assurance Plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll; Interlocutory Ruling on Relevancy of Pleadings
Outcome
Interlocutory ruling; partial exclusion of averments from probation; proof before answer allowed on defenders' first plea-in-law
Legal Topics
Construction of Settlement Agreements, Negligent Misstatement, Release Clauses, Admissibility of Pre Contract Negotiations
Contract Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Construction of Settlement Agreements Negligent Misstatement Release Clauses Admissibility of Pre Contract Negotiations

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

Parties

James Aloysius Kane

Pursuer

Pearl Assurance Plc

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll; Interlocutory Ruling on Relevancy of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pre-contract negotiations are admissible in construing a settlement agreement
  2. 2 Whether the COT3 settlement agreement bars the pursuer's claim for damages for negligent misstatement in a reference
  3. 3 Relevancy of pleadings containing matters of submission or subjective intention

Ratio Decidendi

Except for the pursuer's averment of subjective intention, the new averments regarding pre-contract negotiations and matters of submission are not plainly irrelevant and are allowed to stand for proof before answer, as they may legitimately establish the factual background against which the COT3 agreement was reached.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory ruling; partial exclusion of averments from probation; proof before answer allowed on defenders' first plea-in-law

Orders

  • Exclude from probation the penultimate sentence in Article 2 of Condescendence and the first word of the last sentence
  • Allow proof before answer restricted to defenders' first plea-in-law