Robertson v Robertson [2000] ScotCS 176 (27 June 2000)

Robertson v Robertson [2000] ScotCS 176 (27 June 2000)

A judicial factor appointed on the estate of a former joint venture has title to sue for losses allegedly caused by professional negligence, as the estate comprises assets, rights, and obligations requiring administration, and the appointment vests in the factor the authority to ingather assets and pursue claims for the benefit of those entitled.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 176
Parties
Pursuer: Gilbert Douglas Robertson; Defender: David George Robertson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Action / Debate on Title to Sue and Relevancy
Outcome
Defender's first plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Judicial Factor's Title to Sue, Duties of Solicitors, Administration of Estates, Joint Ventures Vs Partnerships
Professional Negligence Trusts and Judicial Factors Property Law Judicial Factor's Title to Sue Duties of Solicitors Administration of Estates Joint Ventures Vs Partnerships

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gilbert Douglas Robertson

Pursuer

David George Robertson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Action / Debate on Title to Sue and Relevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judicial factor appointed on the estate of a former joint venture has title to sue for losses allegedly caused by professional negligence
  2. 2 Extent of a solicitor's duties when acting as manager of an estate

Ratio Decidendi

A judicial factor appointed on the estate of a former joint venture has title to sue for losses allegedly caused by professional negligence, as the estate comprises assets, rights, and obligations requiring administration, and the appointment vests in the factor the authority to ingather assets and pursue claims for the benefit of those entitled.

Court Disposition

Defender's first plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Proof before answer allowed
  • Defender's motion to exclude averments from probation refused