McCrindle Group Ltd v MaClay Murray & Spens [2013] ScotCS CSOH_72 (14 May 2013)

McCrindle Group Ltd v MaClay Murray & Spens [2013] ScotCS CSOH_72 (14 May 2013)

The defender admitted breach of contract and duty of care by failing to advise the pursuer to raise protective proceedings to preserve its claim for pre-award interest and damages in arbitration. The court found that these failures placed the pursuer in a position where it lost the opportunity to settle the arbitration on more favourable terms, subject to proof of causation and quantification. The court accepted the pursuer's evidence, corroborated by documentation and third-party witnesses, that the uncertainty over interest hampered settlement negotiations and led to a less favourable outcome.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_72
Parties
Pursuer: McCrindle Group Ltd; Defender: Maclay Murray & Spens
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages (professional Negligence, Breach of Contract) / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
Liability established for professional negligence and breach of contract; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Breach of Contract, Causation, Quantification of Loss, Arbitration Procedure
Professional Negligence Contract Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Breach of Contract Causation Quantification of Loss Arbitration Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McCrindle Group Ltd

Pursuer

Maclay Murray & Spens

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages (professional Negligence, Breach of Contract) / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defender's admitted breach of contract and duty of care cause the pursuer loss?
  2. 2 What is the quantification of the pursuer's loss resulting from the defender's negligence?

Ratio Decidendi

The defender admitted breach of contract and duty of care by failing to advise the pursuer to raise protective proceedings to preserve its claim for pre-award interest and damages in arbitration. The court found that these failures placed the pursuer in a position where it lost the opportunity to settle the arbitration on more favourable terms, subject to proof of causation and quantification. The court accepted the pursuer's evidence, corroborated by documentation and third-party witnesses, that the uncertainty over interest hampered settlement negotiations and led to a less favourable outcome.

Court Disposition

Liability established for professional negligence and breach of contract; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Defender found liable for breach of contract and duty of care.
  • Damages to be quantified based on loss of opportunity to settle and associated losses.