Carlin v Alston [1998] ScotCS 50 (4 November 1998)

Carlin v Alston [1998] ScotCS 50 (4 November 1998)

The pursuer's averments, if established, could entitle him to payment of the retained sum, as there was no admission or acknowledgment of the defenders' claimed right of retention. The defenders' entitlement to retain depended on disputed facts regarding authority and representations, which required proof. The pursuer's claims in contract and delict could not be excluded as irrelevant without evidence, as the duties and causation alleged were matters for expert testimony. Accordingly, a proof before answer was allowed on the whole case.

Citation
[1998] ScotCS 50
Parties
Pursuer: Anthony Carlin; Defenders: Trainor Alston
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil (solicitor Client Dispute) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutor on Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed on the whole case; preliminary pleas reserved.
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Right of Retention, Implied Contractual Terms, Duties of Solicitors, Authority of Agents, Professional Conduct, Proof Before Answer
Contract Law Professional Negligence Agency Law Solicitor's Right of Retention Implied Contractual Terms Duties of Solicitors Authority of Agents Professional Conduct +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Carlin

Pursuer

Trainor Alston

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil (solicitor Client Dispute) / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy and Specification; Interlocutor on Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders (solicitors) were entitled to retain £9,779.73 from the pursuer's funds after delivery of the assignation of lease
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's claims in contract and delict for return of funds and alleged overcharging are relevant and suitable for proof
  3. 3 Whether the defenders' right of retention depended on authority or mutuality of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, if established, could entitle him to payment of the retained sum, as there was no admission or acknowledgment of the defenders' claimed right of retention. The defenders' entitlement to retain depended on disputed facts regarding authority and representations, which required proof. The pursuer's claims in contract and delict could not be excluded as irrelevant without evidence, as the duties and causation alleged were matters for expert testimony. Accordingly, a proof before answer was allowed on the whole case.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed on the whole case; preliminary pleas reserved.

Orders

  • Proof before answer on all issues, including the claim for £9,779.73 and alleged overcharging.
  • All preliminary pleas of parties reserved.