MACNEIL, (SECOND) PHILIP BELL AND (THIRD) KATHRYN LONGMUIR AGAINST ATHOLL SCOTT FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_44 (27 April 2018)

MACNEIL, (SECOND) PHILIP BELL AND (THIRD) KATHRYN LONGMUIR AGAINST ATHOLL SCOTT FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSOH_44 (27 April 2018)

The pursuers' pleadings, while inelegant, provide sufficient specification and fair notice of the case against the defenders regarding the alleged duties and timing. The duties pled are relevant to the principal case of discretionary investment management, and the claim for fees, though potentially involving double counting, is a quantum issue to be resolved after proof. The averments regarding FSA Conduct of Business rules are not causative but form part of the factual matrix and need not be excised at this stage. There is no real prejudice to the defenders in allowing the case to proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSOH_44
Parties
Pursuer: Malcolm MacNeil; Pursuer: Philip Bell; Pursuer: Kathryn Longmuir; Defender: Atholl Scott Financial Services Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Procedure Roll Discussion (pleadings Challenge)
Outcome
Defenders' motion refused; case sent for proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Investment Management, Financial Advice, Pleading Specification, Quantum of Damages, Fees and Double Counting
Professional Negligence Contract Law Duty of Care Investment Management Financial Advice Pleading Specification Quantum of Damages Fees and Double Counting

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm MacNeil

Pursuer

Philip Bell

Pursuer

Kathryn Longmuir

Pursuer

Atholl Scott Financial Services Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Procedure Roll Discussion (pleadings Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' pleadings give fair notice of the case against the defenders regarding alleged professional negligence in investment management and advice.
  2. 2 Whether the duties pled by the pursuers are relevant and sufficiently specified.
  3. 3 Whether the claim for repayment of fees constitutes double counting with the claim for capital growth.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings, while inelegant, provide sufficient specification and fair notice of the case against the defenders regarding the alleged duties and timing. The duties pled are relevant to the principal case of discretionary investment management, and the claim for fees, though potentially involving double counting, is a quantum issue to be resolved after proof. The averments regarding FSA Conduct of Business rules are not causative but form part of the factual matrix and need not be excised at this stage. There is no real prejudice to the defenders in allowing the case to proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Defenders' motion refused; case sent for proof before answer.

Orders

  • Case sent for proof before answer.
  • Defenders' preliminary pleas, including prescription, maintained.