Mackie & Ors (Trustees of The Rex Procter & Partners Retirement Benefits Scheme) v Edwards & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_83 (24 June 2015)

Mackie & Ors (Trustees of The Rex Procter & Partners Retirement Benefits Scheme) v Edwards & Anor [2015] ScotCS CSOH_83 (24 June 2015)

The court found that the first defender did not breach his duty of care or contract. He provided actuarial advice within the scope of his appointment and disclosed potential conflicts of interest. The trustees had independent advisers and made their decision after considering all options. The claim was also time-barred under English law and extinguished by prescription under Scots law.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_83
Parties
Pursuer: P H Mackie, A Cooper, J Deegan, C N Ing, A Lupton, Paul J Arrandale and F A Whiteley, as Trustees of the Rex Procter & Partners Retirement Benefits Scheme; First Defender: Eric Edwards; Second Defender: Scottish Widows PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Negligence, Statute of Limitations, Prescription, Actuarial Duties, Trustees' Duties, Investment Advice, Demutualisation
Contract Law Professional Negligence Pensions Law Breach of Contract Negligence Statute of Limitations Prescription Actuarial Duties +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P H Mackie, A Cooper, J Deegan, C N Ing, A Lupton, Paul J Arrandale and F A Whiteley, as Trustees of the Rex Procter & Partners Retirement Benefits Scheme

Pursuer

Eric Edwards

First Defender

Scottish Widows PLC

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the first defender in breach of contract or negligent in his advice to the trustees regarding the switch from DAGC to managed fund?
  2. 2 Was the claim statute barred under English law or extinguished by prescription under Scots law?
  3. 3 Did the first defender owe a duty to advise impartially and highlight the guarantees in the DAGC?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first defender did not breach his duty of care or contract. He provided actuarial advice within the scope of his appointment and disclosed potential conflicts of interest. The trustees had independent advisers and made their decision after considering all options. The claim was also time-barred under English law and extinguished by prescription under Scots law.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • No damages awarded
  • No orders for reparation