HAMID KHOWROWPOUR (AP) AGAINST JAMES STEWART TAYLOR [2018] ScotCS CSOH_64 (15 June 2018)

HAMID KHOWROWPOUR (AP) AGAINST JAMES STEWART TAYLOR [2018] ScotCS CSOH_64 (15 June 2018)

The pursuer suffered actual loss when he parted with £8,000 in 1989, as the rights obtained were less valuable than those he would have obtained had the defender performed his duties; prescription extinguished the obligation to make reparation more than 20 years before the action was raised; action is incompetent for breach of contract as not all former partners were convened.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_64
Parties
Pursuer: Hamid Khosrowpour (AP); Defender: James Stewart Taylor
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages (professional Negligence and Breach of Contract) / Procedure Roll Debate (preliminary Pleas)
Outcome
Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor pronounced.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Partnership Liability, Prescription of Obligations, Competency of Action, Damages for Breach of Contract
Professional Negligence Contract Law Delict Prescription Solicitor's Duty of Care Partnership Liability Prescription of Obligations Competency of Action +1 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 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamid Khosrowpour (AP)

Pursuer

James Stewart Taylor

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages (professional Negligence and Breach of Contract) / Procedure Roll Debate (preliminary Pleas)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action is incompetent for failure to convene all former partners of the dissolved firm
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's claim for damages is extinguished by prescription
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer suffered loss at the time of payment or only upon later events

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer suffered actual loss when he parted with £8,000 in 1989, as the rights obtained were less valuable than those he would have obtained had the defender performed his duties; prescription extinguished the obligation to make reparation more than 20 years before the action was raised; action is incompetent for breach of contract as not all former partners were convened.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; decree of absolvitor pronounced.

Orders

  • Pursuer’s third plea-in-law repelled.
  • Defender’s first plea-in-law sustained.