Prentice v Sandeman [2011] ScotCS CSOH_169 (14 October 2011)

Prentice v Sandeman [2011] ScotCS CSOH_169 (14 October 2011)

The pursuer's claims for professional negligence were irrelevant due to lack of relevant averments and absence of expert evidence or proof of causation. The prescription plea failed due to uncertainty about the date of notification, but the claims were dismissed on relevancy grounds. The claim for the Law Society award of £1,500 survived for further discussion, but its legal basis and competency remained unclear.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_169
Parties
Pursuer: Hamish McLeod Prentice; Defender: Richard Allan Sandeman
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Action for Reparation (professional Negligence) and Payment of Law Society Award / Second Debate on Procedure Roll; Interlocutor on Relevancy and Prescription
Outcome
Action dismissed insofar as seeking payment of £75,180 and £80,340 with interest; claim for Law Society award of £1,500 to be discussed further.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Prescription and Limitation, Employment Law—constructive Unfair Dismissal, Law Society Compensation Awards, Causation of Loss, Relevancy of Pleadings
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Solicitor's Duty of Care Prescription and Limitation Employment Law—constructive Unfair Dismissal Law Society Compensation Awards Causation of Loss Relevancy 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamish McLeod Prentice

Pursuer

Richard Allan Sandeman

Defender

Procedural Posture

Ordinary Action for Reparation (professional Negligence) and Payment of Law Society Award / Second Debate on Procedure Roll; Interlocutor on Relevancy and Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's claims for professional negligence are relevant and properly pled
  2. 2 Whether the claims are time-barred by prescription
  3. 3 Whether the claim for payment of the Law Society of Scotland award is competent in this action

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's claims for professional negligence were irrelevant due to lack of relevant averments and absence of expert evidence or proof of causation. The prescription plea failed due to uncertainty about the date of notification, but the claims were dismissed on relevancy grounds. The claim for the Law Society award of £1,500 survived for further discussion, but its legal basis and competency remained unclear.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed insofar as seeking payment of £75,180 and £80,340 with interest; claim for Law Society award of £1,500 to be discussed further.

Orders

  • Repel defender's first plea-in-law (to competency) of consent.
  • Sustain defender's second plea-in-law (to relevancy) to the extent of dismissing claims for £75,180 and £80,340 with interest.