Muir v. Muirs [1905] ScotLR 43_240 (09 January 1905)

Muir v. Muirs [1905] ScotLR 43_240 (09 January 1905)

The dispute concerns the construction of the copartnery contract, specifically whether the addition of an optician and sight-testing business is within the scope of the partnership. As such, it falls within the arbitration clause, and the matter must be referred to an arbiter. There is no factual dispute requiring proof; the issue is purely one of contract interpretation.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 43_240
Parties
Complainer/reclaimer: Thomas Muir; Respondents: Henry Muir and James Muir
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 January 1905
Procedural Posture
Note of Suspension and Interdict / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor; proceedings sisted to allow arbitration.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause, Construction of Contract, Scope of Partnership Business, Power of Veto in Partnership
Contract Law Arbitration Partnership Law Arbitration Clause Construction of Contract Scope of Partnership Business Power of Veto in Partnership

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Muir

Complainer/reclaimer

Henry Muir and James Muir

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Note of Suspension and Interdict / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dispute regarding the addition of an optician and sight-testing business falls within the arbitration clause of the copartnery contract
  2. 2 Whether the complainer is entitled to a proof on the nature of the proposed business before the arbitration clause is triggered
  3. 3 Whether the complainer has a power of veto under article 7 of the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The dispute concerns the construction of the copartnery contract, specifically whether the addition of an optician and sight-testing business is within the scope of the partnership. As such, it falls within the arbitration clause, and the matter must be referred to an arbiter. There is no factual dispute requiring proof; the issue is purely one of contract interpretation.

Court Disposition

Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor; proceedings sisted to allow arbitration.

Orders

  • Sist of proceedings in hoc statu (pending arbitration)
  • No decision on merits; dispute to be determined by arbiter as per contract