Robinson v. National Bank of Scotland, Ltd [1915] ScotLR 163 (09 November 1915)

Robinson v. National Bank of Scotland, Ltd [1915] ScotLR 163 (09 November 1915)

The pursuer failed to establish that the bank's representations were made for him or communicated to him, or that he relied on them. The evidence did not prove that the bank or its agent acted fraudulently or with reckless disregard for the truth. The representations were confidential, not intended for the pursuer, and there was no duty of disclosure. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable.

Citation
[1915] ScotLR 163
Parties
Pursuer: Tom Robinson; Defender: National Bank of Scotland, Limited; Defender: Donald John Alexander M'Arthur
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 November 1915
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Inner House, Court of Session (appeal From Lord Ordinary)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Bank Liability, Suretyship, Duty of Disclosure, Confidential Communications
Banking Law Contract Law Tort/delict Fraudulent Misrepresentation Bank Liability Suretyship Duty of Disclosure Confidential Communications

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom Robinson

Pursuer

National Bank of Scotland, Limited

Defender

Donald John Alexander M'Arthur

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Inner House, Court of Session (appeal From Lord Ordinary)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank and its agent made false or fraudulent representations as to the financial standing of the co-cautioners.
  2. 2 Whether the representations were made for the pursuer or communicated to him such that he could rely on them.
  3. 3 Whether the bank owed a duty of disclosure to the pursuer regarding the financial position of the co-cautioners.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to establish that the bank's representations were made for him or communicated to him, or that he relied on them. The evidence did not prove that the bank or its agent acted fraudulently or with reckless disregard for the truth. The representations were confidential, not intended for the pursuer, and there was no duty of disclosure. Accordingly, the defenders were not liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed.

Orders

  • Pursuer's pleas repelled.
  • Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from liability.