ARDMAIR BAY HOLDINGS LTD AGAINST JAMES DOUGLAS CRAIG [2019] ScotCS CSOH_58 (31 July 2019)

ARDMAIR BAY HOLDINGS LTD AGAINST JAMES DOUGLAS CRAIG [2019] ScotCS CSOH_58 (31 July 2019)

The court found that the defender breached warranty 26.6 by failing to ensure the Current Contracts Summary was complete and accurate as at the signing date, specifically by omitting the ITT and its implications for the S-Class Vessels. The court also found a breach of warranty 11.3 for not disclosing ongoing negotiations or tenders that could give rise to a material contract. The court held that the ITT was a material event requiring disclosure under clause 8.1.3. The entire agreement clause did not preclude liability for wilful concealment or fraud. The court found that the defender's failure to disclose the ITT amounted to wilful concealment. The misrepresentation claim was not upheld...

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_58
Parties
Pursuer: Ardmair Bay Holdings Ltd; Defender: James Douglas Craig
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Preliminary Proof on Liability
Outcome
Liability established against the defender on breach of contract and wilful concealment; quantum reserved.
Legal Topics
Breach of Warranty, Misrepresentation, Entire Agreement Clause, Wilful Concealment, Share Sale Agreement
Contract Law Commercial Law Company Law Breach of Warranty Misrepresentation Entire Agreement Clause Wilful Concealment Share Sale Agreement

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ardmair Bay Holdings Ltd

Pursuer

James Douglas Craig

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Preliminary Proof on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender breached warranties 11.3 and 26.6 of the Share Purchase Agreement by failing to disclose the ITT and related information.
  2. 2 Whether the defender failed to notify the pursuer of a material event under clause 8.1.3.
  3. 3 Whether the defender engaged in wilful concealment under clause 11.9.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defender breached warranty 26.6 by failing to ensure the Current Contracts Summary was complete and accurate as at the signing date, specifically by omitting the ITT and its implications for the S-Class Vessels. The court also found a breach of warranty 11.3 for not disclosing ongoing negotiations or tenders that could give rise to a material contract. The court held that the ITT was a material event requiring disclosure under clause 8.1.3. The entire agreement clause did not preclude liability for wilful concealment or fraud. The court found that the defender's failure to disclose the ITT amounted to wilful concealment. The misrepresentation claim was not upheld...

Court Disposition

Liability established against the defender on breach of contract and wilful concealment; quantum reserved.

Orders

  • Defender found liable for breach of warranties 11.3 and 26.6, breach of clause 8.1.3, and wilful concealment under clause 11.9.
  • Quantum of damages to be determined at a later hearing.