William Grant and Sons Ltd & Ors v Mercer Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_52 (09 April 2010)

William Grant and Sons Ltd & Ors v Mercer Ltd [2010] ScotCS CSOH_52 (09 April 2010)

The pursuers' pleadings, when read as a whole, are sufficiently relevant and specific to allow the case to proceed to proof on whether the scheme was properly amended to equalise retirement ages prior to May 2001 and whether the defender breached its duties. The presumption of regularity and Section 35A do not assist the defender at this stage, as the defender was not a third party but an adviser engaged to advise on the amendment process.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_52
Parties
Pursuers: William Grant & Sons Limited and Others; Defender: Mercer Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (civil) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification (pleadings Stage)
Outcome
Defender's second plea-in-law (to relevancy and specification) not sustained at this stage; case to proceed to further procedure.
Legal Topics
Pension Scheme Amendment, Equalisation of Retirement Age, Professional Adviser Duties, Presumption of Regularity, Section 35 a Companies Act 1985
Pensions Law Contract Law Company Law Professional Negligence Pension Scheme Amendment Equalisation of Retirement Age Professional Adviser Duties Presumption of Regularity +1 more

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Grant & Sons Limited and Others

Pursuers

Mercer Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (civil) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification (pleadings Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' pleadings are relevant and sufficiently specific to proceed to proof regarding the failure to amend the pension scheme to equalise retirement ages prior to May 2001
  2. 2 Whether the defender (Mercer Ltd) owed and breached duties in contract and/or delict to ensure proper amendment of the scheme
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of regularity (omnia rite acta praesumuntur) or Section 35A of the Companies Act 1985 applies to the defender's position

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings, when read as a whole, are sufficiently relevant and specific to allow the case to proceed to proof on whether the scheme was properly amended to equalise retirement ages prior to May 2001 and whether the defender breached its duties. The presumption of regularity and Section 35A do not assist the defender at this stage, as the defender was not a third party but an adviser engaged to advise on the amendment process.

Court Disposition

Defender's second plea-in-law (to relevancy and specification) not sustained at this stage; case to proceed to further procedure.

Orders

  • Case to be put out By Order for further procedure, pending resolution of related issues including Clause 16(B) of the Rules.