McNally & Anor v. Worrell [2006] ScotSC 106 (05 October 2006)

McNally & Anor v. Worrell [2006] ScotSC 106 (05 October 2006)

The pursuers' pleadings, while not setting out the exact words of the alleged misrepresentations, provided sufficient fair notice of the substance of the statements attributed to the defender. The law does not require the exact words if the substance is clear and fair notice is given. The averments of loss, including damages for vexation and inconvenience, were sufficiently specific to entitle the pursuers to proof. The sheriff erred in dismissing the action for lack of specification.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 106
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: John Paul McNally; Pursuer and Appellant: Donna Lynne McNally; Defender and Respondent: Josephine Edith Worrell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal After Debate on Relevancy and Specification
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of 12 July 2006 recalled; proof allowed on averments; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Damages, Mitigation of Loss, Specification of Pleadings
Contract Law Delict (tort) Property Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Damages Mitigation of Loss Specification of Pleadings

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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Paul McNally

Pursuer and Appellant

Donna Lynne McNally

Pursuer and Appellant

Josephine Edith Worrell

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal After Debate on Relevancy and Specification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' averments of fraudulent misrepresentation are relevant and sufficiently specific to proceed to proof
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' averments of loss, including damages for vexation and inconvenience, are sufficiently specific
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in dismissing the action for lack of specification

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings, while not setting out the exact words of the alleged misrepresentations, provided sufficient fair notice of the substance of the statements attributed to the defender. The law does not require the exact words if the substance is clear and fair notice is given. The averments of loss, including damages for vexation and inconvenience, were sufficiently specific to entitle the pursuers to proof. The sheriff erred in dismissing the action for lack of specification.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of 12 July 2006 recalled; proof allowed on averments; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • First and tenth pleas-in-law for the pursuers repelled.
  • First and fourth pleas-in-law for the defender repelled; third plea-in-law for the defender repelled to the extent it refers to 'supposed fraudulent misrepresentations'.