Smith v Unum Ltd & Baker Oil Tools (UK) Ltd [2000] ScotCS 84 (28 March 2000)

Smith v Unum Ltd & Baker Oil Tools (UK) Ltd [2000] ScotCS 84 (28 March 2000)

The pursuer's averments, if proved, are sufficient to entitle him to an enquiry as to whether the second defenders hold the £5,000 on trust for him. The compromise agreement does not necessarily bar the trust claim, and the action is not bound to fail at this stage.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 84
Parties
Pursuer: Joseph Smith; First Defender: Unum Limited; Second Defender: Baker Oil Tools (U.K.) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy and Specification
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; action not dismissed at this stage.
Legal Topics
Trust Creation and Breach, Employer's Obligations Under Insurance Schemes, Effect of Compromise Agreements, Third Party Beneficiary Rights
Trusts Employment Law Insurance Law Trust Creation and Breach Employer's Obligations Under Insurance Schemes Effect of Compromise Agreements Third Party Beneficiary Rights

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

Parties

Joseph Smith

Pursuer

Unum Limited

First Defender

Baker Oil Tools (U.K.) Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy and Specification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defenders hold £5,000 received from the first defenders on trust for the pursuer
  2. 2 Whether the compromise agreement before the industrial tribunal bars the pursuer's present claim
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer has pled a relevant case of trust and breach of trust

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments, if proved, are sufficient to entitle him to an enquiry as to whether the second defenders hold the £5,000 on trust for him. The compromise agreement does not necessarily bar the trust claim, and the action is not bound to fail at this stage.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; action not dismissed at this stage.

Orders

  • Allow a proof before answer on the whole case.
  • Reserve the second defenders' first plea-in-law.