GEORGE WIMPEY WEST SCOTLAND LTD v. ALAN JOHN HENDERSON [2010] ScotSC 167 (11 October 2010)

GEORGE WIMPEY WEST SCOTLAND LTD v. ALAN JOHN HENDERSON [2010] ScotSC 167 (11 October 2010)

The sheriff was correct to allow a proof before answer as the defender had averred sufficient material to justify inquiry into rectification and personal bar. The emails could be considered in determining the parties' true agreement and whether the pursuers were personally barred from enforcing the missives as written. The fifth plea in law for the defender, relating to misrepresentation, was unsupported and should be repelled.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 167
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: George Wimpey West Scotland Ltd; Defender and Respondent: Alan John Henderson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor After Debate on Relevancy, Seeking Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Appeal refused except to the extent of repelling the defender's fifth plea in law; sheriff's interlocutor otherwise adhered to; all questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Personal Bar (estoppel), Interpretation of Missives, Damages for Breach of Contract
Contract Law Property Law Rectification of Contract Personal Bar (estoppel) Interpretation of Missives Damages for Breach of Contract

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

Parties

George Wimpey West Scotland Ltd

Pursuer and Appellant

Alan John Henderson

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor After Debate on Relevancy, Seeking Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the missives accurately reflect the parties' agreement
  2. 2 Whether rectification of the missives is competent and justified
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers are personally barred from seeking damages due to representations made

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff was correct to allow a proof before answer as the defender had averred sufficient material to justify inquiry into rectification and personal bar. The emails could be considered in determining the parties' true agreement and whether the pursuers were personally barred from enforcing the missives as written. The fifth plea in law for the defender, relating to misrepresentation, was unsupported and should be repelled.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused except to the extent of repelling the defender's fifth plea in law; sheriff's interlocutor otherwise adhered to; all questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Fifth plea in law for the defender in the principal action repelled
  • Appeal otherwise refused