Scottish Widows Investment Partnership Group Ltd & Anor v. Channing & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_07 (16 January 2008)

Scottish Widows Investment Partnership Group Ltd & Anor v. Channing & Ors [2008] ScotCS CSOH_07 (16 January 2008)

Petitioners failed to demonstrate that contemplated proceedings for breach of contract were likely to be brought, due to unresolved issues of title to sue and lack of an intelligible prima facie case. The averments were circumstantial and equally consistent with lawful conduct. The court refused to grant further orders under section 1 of the 1972 Act.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSIH_07
Parties
Petitioner: Scottish Widows Investment Partnership Group Limited; Petitioner: Scottish Widows Investment Partnership Limited; Respondent: Michael Channing; Respondent: Thomas Laidlaw; Respondent: Cordatus Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Administration of Justice (scotland) Act 1972, Section 1 / Final Judgment on Petition
Outcome
petition refused (so far as not already granted)
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Contract, Pre Action Disclosure, Loss of Business, Title to Sue
Employment Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Restrictive Covenants Breach of Contract Pre Action Disclosure Loss of Business Title to Sue

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scottish Widows Investment Partnership Group Limited

Petitioner

Scottish Widows Investment Partnership Limited

Petitioner

Michael Channing

Respondent

Thomas Laidlaw

Respondent

Cordatus Partners Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Administration of Justice (scotland) Act 1972, Section 1 / Final Judgment on Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contemplated civil proceedings for breach of contract are 'likely to be brought' under section 1 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972
  2. 2 Whether petitioners have title to sue for alleged loss
  3. 3 Whether averments constitute an intelligible prima facie case for breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioners failed to demonstrate that contemplated proceedings for breach of contract were likely to be brought, due to unresolved issues of title to sue and lack of an intelligible prima facie case. The averments were circumstantial and equally consistent with lawful conduct. The court refused to grant further orders under section 1 of the 1972 Act.

Court Disposition

petition refused (so far as not already granted)

Orders

  • fourth pleas in law for each respondent sustained
  • prayer of petition refused