Forbes v Duke Of Roxburghe & Ors [1999] ScotCS 94 (1 April 1999)

Forbes v Duke Of Roxburghe & Ors [1999] ScotCS 94 (1 April 1999)

The contract of employment did not contain implied terms requiring the employer to take steps beyond those required by the insurance policy to secure payment of benefits, nor did it restrict the employer's right to terminate employment for genuine redundancy. The pursuer's pleadings did not establish a relevant case for breach of contract or negligence.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 94
Parties
Pursuer: Farquhar Forbes; Defenders: The Duke of Roxburghe and Others (Cawdor Estate Trustees)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil (damages for Breach of Contract and Delict) / Opinion on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)
Outcome
Action dismissed (defenders' first plea-in-law upheld)
Legal Topics
Implied Terms in Employment Contracts, Employer's Duty Regarding Insurance Claims, Redundancy and Sickness Benefits, Permanent Health Insurance Schemes
Employment Law Contract Law Insurance Law Implied Terms in Employment Contracts Employer's Duty Regarding Insurance Claims Redundancy and Sickness Benefits Permanent Health Insurance Schemes

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

Parties

Farquhar Forbes

Pursuer

The Duke of Roxburghe and Others (Cawdor Estate Trustees)

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (damages for Breach of Contract and Delict) / Opinion on Relevancy (motion to Dismiss)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer was under an implied contractual duty to take steps to secure payment of insurance benefits to the employee
  2. 2 Whether the employer was under an implied duty not to terminate employment in circumstances that would deprive the employee of insurance benefits
  3. 3 Whether the employer was negligent or in breach of contract by failing to notify the insurer of the employee's illness

Ratio Decidendi

The contract of employment did not contain implied terms requiring the employer to take steps beyond those required by the insurance policy to secure payment of benefits, nor did it restrict the employer's right to terminate employment for genuine redundancy. The pursuer's pleadings did not establish a relevant case for breach of contract or negligence.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed (defenders' first plea-in-law upheld)

Orders

  • Action dismissed