Michael James Cochrane against Harper MacLeod LLP (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCGLA 75 (15 August 2025)

Michael James Cochrane against Harper MacLeod LLP (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCGLA 75 (15 August 2025)

The Service Agreement expressly excluded responsibility for tax advice, including identifying when tax advice might be required. There was no relevant averment that the obligation to refer for tax advice was reasonably incidental to the retainer. The pursuer's pleadings on loss of chance and causation were fundamentally lacking in specification, particularly as to what tax advice would have been received and how losses were calculated. The case was not unusual to justify extending the duty beyond the retainer. Accordingly, the action was irrelevant and dismissed.

Citation
[2025] SCGLA 75
Parties
Pursuer: Michael James Cochrane; Defender: Harper MacLeod LLP
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Cause (civil) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Judgment on Defender's First Plea in Law
Outcome
Action dismissed; defender's first plea-in-law sustained.
Legal Topics
Scope of Professional Retainer, Exclusion Clauses, Duty to Advise or Refer for Tax Advice, Loss of Chance Claims, Specification of Pleadings
Contract Law Professional Negligence Family Law Scope of Professional Retainer Exclusion Clauses Duty to Advise or Refer for Tax Advice Loss of Chance Claims Specification of Pleadings

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael James Cochrane

Pursuer

Harper MacLeod LLP

Defender

Procedural Posture

Ordinary Cause (civil) / Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Judgment on Defender's First Plea in Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender owed a duty to advise or refer the pursuer for tax advice regarding Capital Gains Tax liability under the terms of the Service Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings on loss of chance and causation were sufficiently specified to proceed to proof
  3. 3 Whether the exclusion of tax advice in the Service Agreement precluded liability for failure to advise or refer

Ratio Decidendi

The Service Agreement expressly excluded responsibility for tax advice, including identifying when tax advice might be required. There was no relevant averment that the obligation to refer for tax advice was reasonably incidental to the retainer. The pursuer's pleadings on loss of chance and causation were fundamentally lacking in specification, particularly as to what tax advice would have been received and how losses were calculated. The case was not unusual to justify extending the duty beyond the retainer. Accordingly, the action was irrelevant and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; defender's first plea-in-law sustained.

Orders

  • Action dismissed.
  • Hearing on expenses assigned for 5 September 2025 at 9.30am, Glasgow Sheriff Court.