Brown (AP) v Prosser & Anor [1999] ScotCS 193 (17 August 1999)

Brown (AP) v Prosser & Anor [1999] ScotCS 193 (17 August 1999)

The pursuer failed to establish any of the essential facts necessary to support his case of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. There was no evidence of assumption of responsibility or duty of care by the first defender, and the pursuer's evidence was found to be unreliable and not credible. Accordingly, the defenders were entitled to absolvitor.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 193
Parties
Pursuer: Derek Brown (AP); First Defender: Stanley Prosser; Second Defender: H. Prosser & Sons Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages (reparation) / Proof Before Answer; Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
Decree of absolvitor in favour of the defenders; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Assumption of Responsibility, Damages
Tort Contract Commercial Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Assumption of Responsibility Damages

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

Parties

Derek Brown (AP)

Pursuer

Stanley Prosser

First Defender

H. Prosser & Sons Ltd

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages (reparation) / Proof Before Answer; Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defender made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations to the pursuer regarding the ownership and financial status of the boat
  2. 2 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care or assumed responsibility to the pursuer in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer relied on any representation by the first defender

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to establish any of the essential facts necessary to support his case of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. There was no evidence of assumption of responsibility or duty of care by the first defender, and the pursuer's evidence was found to be unreliable and not credible. Accordingly, the defenders were entitled to absolvitor.

Court Disposition

Decree of absolvitor in favour of the defenders; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Sustain the second plea-in-law for the first defender.
  • Pronounce decree of absolvitor.