Professional Financial Services v Dick (t/a The Heathfield Partnership) [2010] ScotCS CSOH_131 (24 September 2010)

Professional Financial Services v Dick (t/a The Heathfield Partnership) [2010] ScotCS CSOH_131 (24 September 2010)

The court held that it was an implied term of the contract that the pursuers would effect and maintain professional indemnity insurance against liability arising from the defender's negligence, and that recourse for loss was limited to such insurance, with no further claim against the defender. The facts and contract terms were admitted in the pleadings, and the authority of Barras v Hamilton was binding and directly applicable.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_131
Parties
Pursuer: Professional Financial Services; Defender: Fiona Dick t/a The Heathfield Partnership
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Liability for Negligence, Regulatory Compliance
Contract Law Insurance Law Implied Terms Professional Indemnity Insurance Liability for Negligence Regulatory Compliance

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professional Financial Services

Pursuer

Fiona Dick t/a The Heathfield Partnership

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Debate on Relevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was an implied term of the contract that the pursuers would effect and maintain professional indemnity insurance covering the defender's negligence and that recourse for loss would be limited to such insurance
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers could claim damages from the defender for losses within the insurance excess

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was an implied term of the contract that the pursuers would effect and maintain professional indemnity insurance against liability arising from the defender's negligence, and that recourse for loss was limited to such insurance, with no further claim against the defender. The facts and contract terms were admitted in the pleadings, and the authority of Barras v Hamilton was binding and directly applicable.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Defender's first plea-in-law upheld
  • Action dismissed