Forbes v. Brands Development (Worldwide) Ltd & Anor [2004] ScotSC 48 (20 July 2004)

Forbes v. Brands Development (Worldwide) Ltd & Anor [2004] ScotSC 48 (20 July 2004)

The court held that the pursuer's averments established the existence of a joint venture, making recompense an inappropriate remedy. The pursuer failed to aver that he was not acting in his own interest or that he acted in error. The criteria for recompense were not met, and the action was dismissed.

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 48
Parties
Pursuer: Douglas Fergusson Stewart Forbes; First Defender: Brands Development (World-Wide) Limited; Second Defender: Euan Coutts Shand
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Interlocutor After Debate on Relevancy
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Joint Venture, Unjust Enrichment, Recompense, Count Reckoning and Payment
Civil Law Commercial Law Restitution Joint Venture Unjust Enrichment Recompense Count Reckoning and Payment

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Fergusson Stewart Forbes

Pursuer

Brands Development (World-Wide) Limited

First Defender

Euan Coutts Shand

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Interlocutor After Debate on Relevancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to recompense for sums invested in a failed joint venture
  2. 2 Whether the appropriate remedy is recompense or count reckoning and payment
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer acted in error or in his own interest (in suo)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuer's averments established the existence of a joint venture, making recompense an inappropriate remedy. The pursuer failed to aver that he was not acting in his own interest or that he acted in error. The criteria for recompense were not met, and the action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Pursuer found liable to defenders in expenses