Wight Chiropractic Clinic Ltd v. Corries (Scotland) Solicitors [2005] ScotSC 75 (12 October 2005)

Wight Chiropractic Clinic Ltd v. Corries (Scotland) Solicitors [2005] ScotSC 75 (12 October 2005)

The court held that the conjoining of the clinic and Dr McDonald as pursuers was incompetent as their rights were not identical; Dr McDonald had no relevant claim. However, the clinic's pleadings disclosed a relevant case for contractual or quantum meruit liability for skilled witness fees, justifying proof before answer. Leave was granted to amend the pleadings to remove Dr McDonald as pursuer.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 75
Parties
Pursuer: Wight Chiropractic Clinic Ltd; Pursuer (to Be Removed): Dr Ross McDonald; Defender: Corries (Scotland) Solicitors
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/debt Recovery) / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Competency, Leave to Amend Pleadings, Proof Before Answer Allowed
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed for the clinic's claim; leave granted to amend pleadings to remove Dr McDonald as pursuer; all questions of expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Competency of Conjoined Pursuers, Implied Contract for Professional Services, Quantum Meruit, Liability for Skilled Witness Fees, Amendment of Pleadings
Contract Law Civil Procedure Competency of Conjoined Pursuers Implied Contract for Professional Services Quantum Meruit Liability for Skilled Witness Fees Amendment of Pleadings

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wight Chiropractic Clinic Ltd

Pursuer

Dr Ross McDonald

Pursuer (to Be Removed)

Corries (Scotland) Solicitors

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/debt Recovery) / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Competency, Leave to Amend Pleadings, Proof Before Answer Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether both the clinic and Dr McDonald can competently conjoin as pursuers in the same action
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose a relevant contractual or quantum meruit claim for payment of skilled witness fees
  3. 3 Whether the citation of a skilled witness gives rise to a contractual or other legal obligation to pay fees

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the conjoining of the clinic and Dr McDonald as pursuers was incompetent as their rights were not identical; Dr McDonald had no relevant claim. However, the clinic's pleadings disclosed a relevant case for contractual or quantum meruit liability for skilled witness fees, justifying proof before answer. Leave was granted to amend the pleadings to remove Dr McDonald as pursuer.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed for the clinic's claim; leave granted to amend pleadings to remove Dr McDonald as pursuer; all questions of expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Pursuers granted 21 days to lodge a minute of amendment deleting reference to Dr McDonald as pursuer.
  • 14 days allowed thereafter for answers.