Gray & Anor v. Macrobertss & Anor [2006] ScotSC 34 (07 March 2006)

Gray & Anor v. Macrobertss & Anor [2006] ScotSC 34 (07 March 2006)

The pursuers failed to plead a relevant case on causation, as their averments did not support the inference that, but for the defenders' breach, the desired pension arrangements would have been agreed with ADC. The losses claimed by Mr Gray were reflective of company loss and thus irrecoverable by him as a shareholder. Additionally, the losses arising from the ADC buy-out were too remote to be recoverable. Accordingly, both actions were dismissed.

Citation
[2006] ScotSC 34
Parties
Pursuer: David Gray; Pursuer: Fispak Limited; Defender: MacRoberts; Defender: MacRoberts (second defender)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Debate on Preliminary Pleas (pleas in Law) Before Sheriff Court
Outcome
Actions dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Professional Negligence, Reflective Loss, Causation, Remoteness of Damage, Shareholder Claims
Contract Law Tort/delict Company Law Breach of Contract Professional Negligence Reflective Loss Causation Remoteness of Damage +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Gray

Pursuer

Fispak Limited

Pursuer

MacRoberts

Defender

MacRoberts (second defender)

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Debate on Preliminary Pleas (pleas in Law) Before Sheriff Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers have pled a relevant case of causation against the defenders for alleged breach of contract and negligence
  2. 2 Whether the losses claimed by Mr Gray are too remote to be recoverable
  3. 3 Whether the reflective loss principle precludes Mr Gray's claim for diminution in shareholding value

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers failed to plead a relevant case on causation, as their averments did not support the inference that, but for the defenders' breach, the desired pension arrangements would have been agreed with ADC. The losses claimed by Mr Gray were reflective of company loss and thus irrecoverable by him as a shareholder. Additionally, the losses arising from the ADC buy-out were too remote to be recoverable. Accordingly, both actions were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Actions dismissed

Orders

  • Sustains the defenders' first plea-in-law and dismisses the action
  • Finds the pursuer liable to the defenders in the expenses of the action