JOHN J SMITH v. GORDON & SMYTH and DAVID WILLIAMSONS and RAEBURN ALLISON & COMPANY AND OTHERS [2001] ScotHC 88 (16th August, 2001)

JOHN J SMITH v. GORDON & SMYTH and DAVID WILLIAMSONS and RAEBURN ALLISON & COMPANY AND OTHERS [2001] ScotHC 88 (16th August, 2001)

The court finds that the pursuer's pleadings raise arguable issues regarding the scope of professional duties, prescription, and causation, but lack sufficient specification and clarity to entitle the pursuer to invoke section 11(3) of the 1973 Act. The claims for penalty and interest are prescribed, and joint and several liability is not competent for breaches of separate contracts. The action is not sufficiently pled to proceed against the defenders as currently formulated.

Citation
[2001] ScotHC 88
Parties
Pursuer: John J Smith; First Defenders: Gordon & Smyth and Others; Second Defender: David Williamson; Third Defenders: Raeburn Allison & Company and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Action / Debate on Preliminary Pleas (prescription, Relevancy, Specification)
Outcome
Action dismissed against all defenders for lack of specification and prescription of penalty and interest claims.
Legal Topics
Prescription, Duty of Care, Capital Gains Tax, Roll Over Relief, Joint and Several Liability, Breach of Contract
Professional Negligence Contract Law Tax Law Prescription Duty of Care Capital Gains Tax Roll Over Relief Joint and Several Liability +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John J Smith

Pursuer

Gordon & Smyth and Others

First Defenders

David Williamson

Second Defender

Raeburn Allison & Company and Others

Third Defenders

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Action / Debate on Preliminary Pleas (prescription, Relevancy, Specification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed contractual duties to advise on tax consequences and roll-over relief
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's claims are prescribed under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently specific and relevant

Ratio Decidendi

The court finds that the pursuer's pleadings raise arguable issues regarding the scope of professional duties, prescription, and causation, but lack sufficient specification and clarity to entitle the pursuer to invoke section 11(3) of the 1973 Act. The claims for penalty and interest are prescribed, and joint and several liability is not competent for breaches of separate contracts. The action is not sufficiently pled to proceed against the defenders as currently formulated.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed against all defenders for lack of specification and prescription of penalty and interest claims.

Orders

  • The pursuer's action is dismissed against all defenders.
  • Claims for penalty and interest are prescribed and dismissed.