LEANDER CB CONSULTANTS LTD T/A LEANDOR ADVISORS AGAINST BOGSIDE INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER [2023] ScotCS CSOH_26 (25 April 2023)

LEANDER CB CONSULTANTS LTD T/A LEANDOR ADVISORS AGAINST BOGSIDE INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER [2023] ScotCS CSOH_26 (25 April 2023)

Defenders' averments of fraud and misrepresentation are sufficiently specific and relevant to entitle them to a proof before answer; neither pursuer nor first defender is bound by the arbitration clause in the SHA, so court jurisdiction is not ousted; defenders have pled a substantive defence and relevant title to sue.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSOH_26
Parties
Pursuer: Leander CB Consultants Limited t/a Leandor Advisors; First Defender: Bogside Investments Limited; Second Defender: Alan Carson McLeish
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Debate on Commercial Roll; Interlocutory Opinion
Outcome
Case put out by order for further procedure; proof before answer allowed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Reduction of Contract, Jurisdiction, Arbitration Clause, Title to Sue
Contract Law Fraud Arbitration Fraudulent Misrepresentation Reduction of Contract Jurisdiction Arbitration Clause Title to Sue

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leander CB Consultants Limited t/a Leandor Advisors

Pursuer

Bogside Investments Limited

First Defender

Alan Carson McLeish

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Debate on Commercial Roll; Interlocutory Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court lacks jurisdiction due to arbitration clause in SHA
  2. 2 Whether defenders' averments of fraud are sufficiently relevant and specific
  3. 3 Whether defenders have averred a substantive defence

Ratio Decidendi

Defenders' averments of fraud and misrepresentation are sufficiently specific and relevant to entitle them to a proof before answer; neither pursuer nor first defender is bound by the arbitration clause in the SHA, so court jurisdiction is not ousted; defenders have pled a substantive defence and relevant title to sue.

Court Disposition

Case put out by order for further procedure; proof before answer allowed.

Orders

  • Case to be put out by order to discuss further procedure and orders in light of opinion.
  • Proof before answer allowed on defenders' averments.