Milne v Gray & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_84 (4 June 2008)

Milne v Gray & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_84 (4 June 2008)

The pleadings in both actions fail to disclose sufficient averments of personal responsibility, specific misrepresentation, reliance, or dishonesty to support claims of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation against the directors personally. The cases do not go beyond ordinary professional relationships and do not justify piercing the corporate veil or attributing personal liability to the defenders. The actions are therefore irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_84
Parties
Pursuer: Iris Joan Milne; Pursuer: Gillanders Motors (Aberdeen) Limited; Defender: Hazel Margaret Gray; Defender: Another (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll (pleading Challenge)
Outcome
Actions dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Personal Liability of Directors, Professional Indemnity Insurance
Tort Company Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Personal Liability of Directors Professional Indemnity Insurance

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iris Joan Milne

Pursuer

Gillanders Motors (Aberdeen) Limited

Pursuer

Hazel Margaret Gray

Defender

Another (unnamed)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll (pleading Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the directors of a company can be held personally liable for alleged fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation regarding professional indemnity insurance coverage for investments made by the pursuers.
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose sufficient averments of personal responsibility, misrepresentation, reliance, and dishonesty to allow the cases to proceed to proof.

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings in both actions fail to disclose sufficient averments of personal responsibility, specific misrepresentation, reliance, or dishonesty to support claims of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation against the directors personally. The cases do not go beyond ordinary professional relationships and do not justify piercing the corporate veil or attributing personal liability to the defenders. The actions are therefore irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Actions dismissed

Orders

  • Sustained defenders' first plea in law and dismissed both actions.