Burke v Bayne Services Edinburgh Ltd & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSIH_14 (18 February 2011)

Burke v Bayne Services Edinburgh Ltd & Ors [2011] ScotCS CSIH_14 (18 February 2011)

The court held the expert valuation was binding and final under the 2000 agreement, and the court had no power to disturb it in a section 459 application absent fraud or misconduct. Leave to amend was refused due to lateness, lack of draft, and irrelevancy.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_14
Parties
Petitioner: Alisdair David Burke; Respondent: Bayne Services (Edinburgh) Ltd; Respondent: Second Respondent; Respondent: Third Respondent; Respondent: Fourth Respondent; Respondent: Fifth Respondent; Respondent: Sixth Respondent
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion Under Companies Act 1985 Section 459 / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Unfair Prejudice, Shareholder Remedies, Expert Valuation, Binding Agreement
Company Law Unfair Prejudice Shareholder Remedies Expert Valuation Binding Agreement

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Alisdair David Burke

Petitioner

Bayne Services (Edinburgh) Ltd

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Third Respondent

Respondent

Fourth Respondent

Respondent

Fifth Respondent

Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion Under Companies Act 1985 Section 459 / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affairs of the company were conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner's interests
  2. 2 Whether the expert valuation is binding on the parties
  3. 3 Whether leave to amend pleadings should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the expert valuation was binding and final under the 2000 agreement, and the court had no power to disturb it in a section 459 application absent fraud or misconduct. Leave to amend was refused due to lateness, lack of draft, and irrelevancy.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • Petitioner bound to accept the expert valuation
  • Leave to amend pleadings refused