John Kenway v Orcantic [1979] ScotCS CSOH_6 (08 June 1979)

John Kenway v Orcantic [1979] ScotCS CSOH_6 (08 June 1979)

If the pursuers prove their averments, they are entitled to recover losses resulting from the shortfall in passenger capacity, as the defenders owed a duty of care in giving advice and representations regarding the vessel's capacity, and a negligent misrepresentation is actionable even if the representation was not made with the intention of inducing a contract.

Citation
[1979] ScotCS CSOH_6
Parties
Pursuer: John Kenway Ltd; Defender: Orcantic Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 June 1979
Procedural Posture
Civil / Motion to Dismiss (pleas in Law)
Outcome
motion to dismiss refused; pursuers allowed to proceed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Professional Negligence, Reparation
Contract Tort (delict) Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Professional Negligence Reparation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kenway Ltd

Pursuer

Orcantic Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Motion to Dismiss (pleas in Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders owed a duty of care in giving advice and representations regarding vessel capacity
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' representations amounted to actionable negligent misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers have relevant averments to support a claim for reparation

Ratio Decidendi

If the pursuers prove their averments, they are entitled to recover losses resulting from the shortfall in passenger capacity, as the defenders owed a duty of care in giving advice and representations regarding the vessel's capacity, and a negligent misrepresentation is actionable even if the representation was not made with the intention of inducing a contract.

Court Disposition

motion to dismiss refused; pursuers allowed to proceed

Orders

  • Pursuers' averments held relevant; case to proceed to proof