Smith v Gordon & Smyth & Ors [2001] ScotCS 207 (16 August 2001)

Smith v Gordon & Smyth & Ors [2001] ScotCS 207 (16 August 2001)

The court found that the pursuer's averments were insufficiently specific to postpone prescription under s.11(3) of the 1973 Act and failed to disclose a relevant and adequately specified case of breach of contract or professional negligence against the defenders. The claims for joint and several liability were incompetent as pled, arising from separate contracts. The action was dismissed as irrelevant and/or prescribed.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 207
Parties
Pursuer: John J Smith; First Defenders: Gordon & Smyth and Others; Second Defender: David Williamson; Third Defenders: Raeburn Allison & Company and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Professional Negligence (breach of Contract) / Debate on Preliminary Pleas (prescription, Relevancy, Specification) Before Proof
Outcome
Action dismissed (decree of dismissal granted)
Legal Topics
Prescription (limitation of Actions), Duties of Solicitors and Accountants, Capital Gains Tax, Roll Over Relief, Joint and Several Liability, Specification of Pleadings
Professional Negligence Contract Law Tax Law Prescription (limitation of Actions) Duties of Solicitors and Accountants 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 4 Authorities cited 14 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

Civil Action for Professional Negligence (breach of Contract) / Debate on Preliminary Pleas (prescription, Relevancy, Specification) Before Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claims against the defenders are prescribed under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose a relevant and sufficiently specified case of breach of contract/professional negligence against each defender
  3. 3 Whether joint and several liability can arise from separate contracts with different professionals

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer's averments were insufficiently specific to postpone prescription under s.11(3) of the 1973 Act and failed to disclose a relevant and adequately specified case of breach of contract or professional negligence against the defenders. The claims for joint and several liability were incompetent as pled, arising from separate contracts. The action was dismissed as irrelevant and/or prescribed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed (decree of dismissal granted)

Orders

  • The action against all defenders is dismissed as irrelevant and/or prescribed.
  • No proof before answer allowed.