Ross & Bonnyman Ltd v Small & Ors [2001] ScotCS 145 (5 June 2001)

Ross & Bonnyman Ltd v Small & Ors [2001] ScotCS 145 (5 June 2001)

Pursuers' averments fail to specify a relevant basis for proof of actual knowledge by first defender prior to April 1999 that purchases were detrimental to employer; no relevant averments of wrongful inducement by third defender; action dismissed against both on first crave.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 145
Parties
Pursuer: Ross & Bonnyman Ltd; First Defender: Thomas Charles Small; Second Defender: Alloy & Metal Limited; Third Defender: Third Defender (unnamed, former sales manager of Tayside Metals Ltd)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Commercial Damages Action (remitted From Sheriff Court) / Opinion on Relevancy and Specification; Partial Dismissal; Proof Before Answer Ordered
Outcome
Action dismissed against first and third defenders on first crave; proof before answer allowed on second crave between pursuers and first defender; case put out By Order for further preparation.
Legal Topics
Duty of Fidelity, Breach of Contract, Wrongful Inducement, Economic Delict, Employee Duties, Inducement of Breach, Damages Calculation
Employment Law Contract Law Commercial Law Delict Duty of Fidelity Breach of Contract Wrongful Inducement Economic Delict +3 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ross & Bonnyman Ltd

Pursuer

Thomas Charles Small

First Defender

Alloy & Metal Limited

Second Defender

Third Defender (unnamed, former sales manager of Tayside Metals Ltd)

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Damages Action (remitted From Sheriff Court) / Opinion on Relevancy and Specification; Partial Dismissal; Proof Before Answer Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuers' averments sufficiently specify actual knowledge by first defender of detriment to employer
  2. 2 Whether third defender wrongfully induced breach of contract by first defender
  3. 3 Whether pursuers' claim for damages is properly particularised

Ratio Decidendi

Pursuers' averments fail to specify a relevant basis for proof of actual knowledge by first defender prior to April 1999 that purchases were detrimental to employer; no relevant averments of wrongful inducement by third defender; action dismissed against both on first crave.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed against first and third defenders on first crave; proof before answer allowed on second crave between pursuers and first defender; case put out By Order for further preparation.

Orders

  • Sustain first defender's first plea-in-law to extent of dismissing action against him on first crave.
  • Sustain third defender's first plea-in-law and dismiss action against him.