Dible v Morton Fraser Partnership [2000] ScotCS 247 (6 September 2000)

Dible v Morton Fraser Partnership [2000] ScotCS 247 (6 September 2000)

The pursuer's averments, if proved, are sufficient to justify inquiry into whether the defenders failed in their professional duty by misunderstanding the law on matrimonial property valuation and giving negligent advice on settlement, and whether they failed in their duties regarding variation of aliment and cross...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 247
Parties
Pursuer: James Kenneth Dible; Defenders: The Morton Fraser Partnership
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil (professional Negligence) / Procedure Roll Debate; Interlocutor on Relevancy and Allowance of Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; action to proceed to inquiry on all averments.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Financial Provision on Divorce, Advice on Settlement Offers, Cross Grounds of Appeal, Variation of Aliment
Professional Negligence Family Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Financial Provision on Divorce Advice on Settlement Offers Cross Grounds of Appeal Variation of Aliment

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kenneth Dible

Pursuer

The Morton Fraser Partnership

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (professional Negligence) / Procedure Roll Debate; Interlocutor on Relevancy and Allowance of Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders (solicitors) were professionally negligent in advising the pursuer to reject a settlement offer in divorce proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the defenders failed to take proper steps to vary aliment payments
  3. 3 Whether the defenders failed to instruct counsel to consider cross grounds of appeal regarding division of matrimonial property

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, if proved, are sufficient to justify inquiry into whether the defenders failed in their professional duty by misunderstanding the law on matrimonial property valuation and giving negligent advice on settlement, and whether they failed in their duties regarding variation of aliment and cross grounds of appeal. These issues cannot be resolved without proof.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; action to proceed to inquiry on all averments.

Orders

  • Proof before answer of the whole averments of parties allowed.