Dick v. Alston [1911] ScotLR 996 (17 July 1911)

Dick v. Alston [1911] ScotLR 996 (17 July 1911)

The defender was not liable because he did not advise the pursuer on the investments or securities in question, did not profit improperly from the transactions, made full disclosure where required, and the pursuer acted independently or on her husband's advice. There was no breach of fiduciary duty or failure to disclose a conflict of interest sufficient to impose liability. The facts did not establish undue influence or misrepresentation by the defender.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 996
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Dick; Defender: John Motherwell Alston
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 July 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Judgment
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved from liability); pursuer's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duty of Solicitor, Transactions Between Agent and Client, Conflict of Interest, Duty of Disclosure, Undue Influence, Damages for Breach of Duty
Agency Law Professional Negligence Banking Law Fiduciary Duty of Solicitor Transactions Between Agent and Client Conflict of Interest Duty of Disclosure Undue Influence +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Dick

Pursuer

John Motherwell Alston

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitor acting as agent for a client and also having an interest in the client's transactions breached fiduciary duty by failing to advise or protect the client from loss.
  2. 2 Whether the solicitor improperly profited from transactions with the client or failed to disclose conflicts of interest.
  3. 3 Whether the solicitor was liable for the client's losses arising from investments and securities given for her husband's business.

Ratio Decidendi

The defender was not liable because he did not advise the pursuer on the investments or securities in question, did not profit improperly from the transactions, made full disclosure where required, and the pursuer acted independently or on her husband's advice. There was no breach of fiduciary duty or failure to disclose a conflict of interest sufficient to impose liability. The facts did not establish undue influence or misrepresentation by the defender.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved from liability); pursuer's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Action dismissed; defender absolved from conclusions of the action.