ROBERT GORDON KIDD AGAINST LIME ROCK MANAGEMENT LLP AND OTHERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_96 (27 November 2020)

ROBERT GORDON KIDD AGAINST LIME ROCK MANAGEMENT LLP AND OTHERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_96 (27 November 2020)

The court held that the settlement agreement between the pursuer and P&W/BP was in full and final settlement of the same loss now claimed against the present defenders. The agreement, properly construed in its factual context, constituted full satisfaction of the pursuer’s claim for loss arising from the transaction. As a result, the pursuer’s cause of action against the current defenders was extinguished and the present action was incompetent.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_96
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Gordon Kidd; First Defender: Lime Rock Management LLP; Second Defender: Lime Rock Management LP; Third Defender: Lime Rock Partners V, LP; Fourth Defender: Hamish Hector Lawrence Ross; Fifth Defender: Jason Smith; Sixth Defender: Ledingham Chalmers LLP; Seventh Defender: Malcolm Laing; Eighth Defender: Rodney Alphonsious Magill Hutchison
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Damages Action / Debate on Competency, Relevancy, and Prescription
Outcome
Action dismissed as incompetent
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreements, Joint and Several Liability, Prescription and Limitation, Damages for Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Professional Negligence, Abuse of Process
Contract Law Tort/delict Civil Procedure Settlement Agreements Joint and Several Liability Prescription and Limitation Damages for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Fraudulent Misrepresentation +2 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 2 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Gordon Kidd

Pursuer

Lime Rock Management LLP

First Defender

Lime Rock Management LP

Second Defender

Lime Rock Partners V, LP

Third Defender

Hamish Hector Lawrence Ross

Fourth Defender

Jason Smith

Fifth Defender

Ledingham Chalmers LLP

Sixth Defender

Malcolm Laing

Seventh Defender

Rodney Alphonsious Magill Hutchison

Eighth Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Damages Action / Debate on Competency, Relevancy, and Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the present action is incompetent due to prior settlement for the same loss
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments are lacking in specification and are irrelevant
  3. 3 Whether the claim is extinguished by prescription

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the settlement agreement between the pursuer and P&W/BP was in full and final settlement of the same loss now claimed against the present defenders. The agreement, properly construed in its factual context, constituted full satisfaction of the pursuer’s claim for loss arising from the transaction. As a result, the pursuer’s cause of action against the current defenders was extinguished and the present action was incompetent.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as incompetent

Orders

  • The action is dismissed as incompetent due to prior full and final settlement of the same loss.
  • No further proof or inquiry into the adequacy of the settlement sum is required.