Conyers v. Conyers & Company Ltd [2005] ScotSC 23 (18 April 2005)

Conyers v. Conyers & Company Ltd [2005] ScotSC 23 (18 April 2005)

The letter of 4 October 2004 did not amount to the requisite notification to the defender company as required by the payment agreement. Without such notification, the remedial period did not commence, and no event of default could be established. Therefore, the pursuer's action was irrelevant and fell to be dismissed.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 23
Parties
Pursuer: Michael Conyers; Defender: Conyers & Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil / Debate on Relevancy (plea in Law)
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Contractual Notice, Default Clauses, Shareholder Agreements
Contract Law Company Law Contractual Notice Default Clauses Shareholder Agreements

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Conyers

Pursuer

Conyers & Co Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Debate on Relevancy (plea in Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter dated 4 October 2004 constituted valid contractual notification of default under the payment agreement
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer was entitled to proceed with the action in absence of such notification

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 4 October 2004 did not amount to the requisite notification to the defender company as required by the payment agreement. Without such notification, the remedial period did not commence, and no event of default could be established. Therefore, the pursuer's action was irrelevant and fell to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed.
  • Pursuer found liable to defenders in expenses.