Worbey & Anor v Elliott [2014] ScotCS CSOH_19 (06 February 2014)

Worbey & Anor v Elliott [2014] ScotCS CSOH_19 (06 February 2014)

The principal obligation in this case is payment of a share of profits, with accounting being ancillary. The place of performance is the pursuers' domicile in Scotland, giving the court jurisdiction. The pursuers' averments are sufficient to entitle them to a proof before answer on the existence of a contract and entitlement to accounting.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_19
Parties
Pursuer: Steven Worbey; Pursuer: Kevin Stuart Farrell; Defender: Steven Elliott
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Accounting and Payment / Debate on Preliminary Pleas to Jurisdiction and Relevancy
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; case to proceed to evidence on contract formation and breach.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Contract Formation, Obligation to Account, Joint Venture, Count, Reckoning and Payment
Contract Law Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Contract Formation Obligation to Account Joint Venture Count, Reckoning and Payment

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

Parties

Steven Worbey

Pursuer

Kevin Stuart Farrell

Pursuer

Steven Elliott

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Accounting and Payment / Debate on Preliminary Pleas to Jurisdiction and Relevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish court has jurisdiction over the defender for an alleged contractual obligation to account and pay profits
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' pleadings are relevant and sufficient to proceed to proof

Ratio Decidendi

The principal obligation in this case is payment of a share of profits, with accounting being ancillary. The place of performance is the pursuers' domicile in Scotland, giving the court jurisdiction. The pursuers' averments are sufficient to entitle them to a proof before answer on the existence of a contract and entitlement to accounting.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; case to proceed to evidence on contract formation and breach.

Orders

  • Proof before answer restricted to whether a contract was concluded and whether the pursuers were in material breach entitling rescission.
  • Case to be put out By Order for parties to address scope and timetable for proof.