Leslie & Ors, Re Judicial Review [2015] ScotCS CSOH_136 (15 October 2015)

Leslie & Ors, Re Judicial Review [2015] ScotCS CSOH_136 (15 October 2015)

The arbiter acted ultra vires by valuing work in progress herself without appointing a mutually agreed valuer, ordering personal guarantees not provided for in the contract, and dividing the Picsel payment based on a misapplication of Clause Tenth. She breached natural justice by obtaining external legal and valuation advice without disclosure to the parties. These errors rendered her award invalid and subject to reduction.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_136
Parties
Petitioner: Forbes Gillies Leslie; Petitioner: James Gordon Bell; Petitioner: Joyce Amanda Marshall; Petitioner: David James McElroy; Petitioner: Mandy Lees Quinn; Petitioner: Dallas McMillan (firm); Respondent: Colin Neil McLeod
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Opinion and Final Judgment
Outcome
arbiter's award reduced
Legal Topics
Arbitrator's Powers, Natural Justice, Ultra Vires, Partnership Dissolution, Valuation of Assets, Personal Guarantees
Arbitration Contract Law Partnership Law Arbitrator's Powers Natural Justice Ultra Vires Partnership Dissolution Valuation of Assets +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forbes Gillies Leslie

Petitioner

James Gordon Bell

Petitioner

Joyce Amanda Marshall

Petitioner

David James McElroy

Petitioner

Mandy Lees Quinn

Petitioner

Dallas McMillan (firm)

Petitioner

Colin Neil McLeod

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Opinion and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbiter acted ultra vires in valuing work in progress and ordering personal guarantees
  2. 2 Whether the arbiter breached natural justice by obtaining external advice and information without disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the arbiter misapplied partnership agreement clauses, particularly regarding the Picsel payment

Ratio Decidendi

The arbiter acted ultra vires by valuing work in progress herself without appointing a mutually agreed valuer, ordering personal guarantees not provided for in the contract, and dividing the Picsel payment based on a misapplication of Clause Tenth. She breached natural justice by obtaining external legal and valuation advice without disclosure to the parties. These errors rendered her award invalid and subject to reduction.

Court Disposition

arbiter's award reduced

Orders

  • The arbiter's award is reduced for acting ultra vires and contrary to natural justice.