MONTAGUE EVANS LLP V LUIGI ROMANO [2015] ScotSC 4 (13 January 2015)

MONTAGUE EVANS LLP V LUIGI ROMANO [2015] ScotSC 4 (13 January 2015)

The sheriff's findings that the contract between the parties only provided for payment to the pursuers where there was either a sale to Atlas or a compulsory purchase order by Glasgow City Council were sound. The pursuers were not the effective cause of the sale to Land Securities, and there was no contractual or quantum meruit entitlement to payment. The appeal was an attempt to challenge factual findings, not a matter of construction, and failed to meet the high threshold for appellate interference.

Citation
[2015] ScotSC 4
Parties
Pursuer: Montagu Evans LLP; Defender: Luigi Romano
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision
Outcome
Appeal refused
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Contract Construction, Quantum Meruit, Contingency Fee Agreements, Appeal Standards
Contract Law Civil Procedure Contract Formation Contract Construction Quantum Meruit Contingency Fee Agreements Appeal Standards

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

Montagu Evans LLP

Pursuer

Luigi Romano

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers were contractually entitled to payment for services rendered
  2. 2 Whether payment was contingent upon a sale to Atlas or a compulsory purchase order by Glasgow City Council
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers were entitled to payment on a quantum meruit basis

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff's findings that the contract between the parties only provided for payment to the pursuers where there was either a sale to Atlas or a compulsory purchase order by Glasgow City Council were sound. The pursuers were not the effective cause of the sale to Land Securities, and there was no contractual or quantum meruit entitlement to payment. The appeal was an attempt to challenge factual findings, not a matter of construction, and failed to meet the high threshold for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused

Orders

  • Adheres to the sheriff’s interlocutor dated 2 July 2014 and that of 23 July 2014
  • Finds the pursuers liable to the defender in the expenses of the appeal