Prudential Assurance v Gibson (t/a John Gibson Financial Services) [2004] ScotSC 62 (22 September 2004)

Prudential Assurance v Gibson (t/a John Gibson Financial Services) [2004] ScotSC 62 (22 September 2004)

The defender's counterclaim was dismissed because the alleged duties of care owed by the pursuers to the defender for statements made to third parties (the defender's clients) were not supported by established legal categories, and the relationship between the parties was not analogous to that in Spring v Guardian Assurance plc. The pleadings did not disclose a relevant case in law.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 62
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Prudential Assurance; Defender and Respondent: John Gibson trading as John Gibson Financial Services
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor Allowing Proof Before Answer
Outcome
appeal allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed; principal action to proceed to proof restricted to quantum only
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligent Misstatement, Relevancy of Pleadings, Counterclaim Dismissal
Contract Law Tort Law Duty of Care Negligent Misstatement Relevancy of Pleadings Counterclaim Dismissal

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prudential Assurance

Pursuer and Appellant

John Gibson trading as John Gibson Financial Services

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutor Allowing Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender's averments in the counterclaim disclose a relevant case of duty of care owed by the pursuers to the defender for statements made to third parties
  2. 2 Whether the principal action should proceed to proof restricted to quantum only

Ratio Decidendi

The defender's counterclaim was dismissed because the alleged duties of care owed by the pursuers to the defender for statements made to third parties (the defender's clients) were not supported by established legal categories, and the relationship between the parties was not analogous to that in Spring v Guardian Assurance plc. The pleadings did not disclose a relevant case in law.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed; principal action to proceed to proof restricted to quantum only

Orders

  • Recall of interlocutor of 19 May 2004
  • Exclusion from probation of specified averments in answer 3 on page 3 of the closed record