Edward Alexander Leishman in the cause Edward Alexander Leishman against Alexander Antony Noble (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2024] SACCIV 46 (11 November 2024)

Edward Alexander Leishman in the cause Edward Alexander Leishman against Alexander Antony Noble (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2024] SACCIV 46 (11 November 2024)

The appeal was allowed because both parties' pleadings and subsequent conduct indicated an arguable case that a binding agreement may have been reached on 26 August 2022, and the sheriff erred by not fixing proof before answer to determine the contractual basis of their actions.

Citation
[2024] SACCIV 46
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Edward Alexander Leishman; Defender/respondent: Alexander Antony Noble
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal at Preliminary Plea to Relevancy
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sheriff's judgment recalled; case remitted for proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Share Sale Agreements, Heads of Terms, Proof Before Answer
Contract Law Company Law Formation of Contract Share Sale Agreements Heads of Terms Proof Before Answer

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Alexander Leishman

Pursuer/appellant

Alexander Antony Noble

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal at Preliminary Plea to Relevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Heads of Terms document constituted a binding contract for payment of shares
  2. 2 Whether subsequent conduct of parties can be considered in determining contractual intention
  3. 3 Whether proof before answer should have been fixed to determine existence of binding agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because both parties' pleadings and subsequent conduct indicated an arguable case that a binding agreement may have been reached on 26 August 2022, and the sheriff erred by not fixing proof before answer to determine the contractual basis of their actions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sheriff's judgment recalled; case remitted for proof before answer.

Orders

  • Recall interlocutors dated 20 December 2023 and 19 February 2024.
  • Remit case to sheriff at Paisley to fix proof before answer on whether a binding contract was agreed on or about 26 August 2022.