Ross v Morley & Anor [2013] ScotCS CSOH_175 (08 November 2013)

Ross v Morley & Anor [2013] ScotCS CSOH_175 (08 November 2013)

The pursuer's averments do not establish a constructive trust due to lack of special circumstances and insufficient specification of a fiduciary relationship. However, the breach of contract claim is suitable for enquiry, as the averments regarding induced error and prescription are sufficiently specified to warrant proof before answer.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_175
Parties
Pursuer: Gordon George Ross; First Defender: Sebastian Morley; Second Defender: Paul Williamson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Hearing
Outcome
Trust case excluded from probation; breach of contract case allowed proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Breach of Contract, Induced Error, Prescription Period
Trusts Contract Law Prescription Constructive Trust Breach of Contract Induced Error Prescription Period

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon George Ross

Pursuer

Sebastian Morley

First Defender

Paul Williamson

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a constructive trust arose in favour of the pursuer regarding shares in Vigilant Security (Scotland) Limited
  2. 2 Whether the defenders breached a contract to transfer shares to the pursuer
  3. 3 Whether the prescriptive period for the breach of contract claim was interrupted by induced error

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments do not establish a constructive trust due to lack of special circumstances and insufficient specification of a fiduciary relationship. However, the breach of contract claim is suitable for enquiry, as the averments regarding induced error and prescription are sufficiently specified to warrant proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Trust case excluded from probation; breach of contract case allowed proof before answer.

Orders

  • Sustain each defender's first plea-in-law to the extent of excluding trust averments from probation.
  • Allow proof before answer on breach of contract case.