MARINE & OFFSHORE (SCOTLAND) LIMITED, RECLAIMING MOTION BY AGAINST (SECOND) GARY ROBERT HILL; AND (THIRD) MCA INSPECTION SERVICES LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSIH_9 (07 February 2018)

MARINE & OFFSHORE (SCOTLAND) LIMITED, RECLAIMING MOTION BY AGAINST (SECOND) GARY ROBERT HILL; AND (THIRD) MCA INSPECTION SERVICES LIMITED [2018] ScotCS CSIH_9 (07 February 2018)

The pursuers' averments, though lengthy and confused, are sufficient to allege a fraudulent scheme by the defenders to inflate prices and deprive the pursuers of profit. The loss calculation, while simple, is adequate. The denial of the defenders' cost plus 10% averment is not an admission. The action should proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_9
Parties
Pursuer and Reclaimer: Marine & Offshore (Scotland) Limited; Second Defender and Respondent: Gary Robert Hill; Third Defender and Respondent: MCA Inspection Services Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action / Reclaiming Motion Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action Against Second and Third Defenders
Outcome
interlocutor recalled; proof before answer allowed
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements for Fraud, Loss Calculation in Fraud, Relevancy of Averments
Commercial Law Civil Fraud Pleading Requirements for Fraud Loss Calculation in Fraud Relevancy of Averments

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marine & Offshore (Scotland) Limited

Pursuer and Reclaimer

Gary Robert Hill

Second Defender and Respondent

MCA Inspection Services Limited

Third Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action / Reclaiming Motion Against Interlocutor Dismissing Action Against Second and Third Defenders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What level of specification is required in pleadings alleging fraud in a commercial action?
  2. 2 Are the pursuers' averments sufficient to establish a fraudulent scheme and resultant loss?
  3. 3 Is the calculation of loss relevant and adequately specified?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' averments, though lengthy and confused, are sufficient to allege a fraudulent scheme by the defenders to inflate prices and deprive the pursuers of profit. The loss calculation, while simple, is adequate. The denial of the defenders' cost plus 10% averment is not an admission. The action should proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

interlocutor recalled; proof before answer allowed

Orders

  • Recall interlocutor of commercial judge dated 4 July 2017 (except as holding previous interlocutor pro non scripto)
  • Allow proof before answer between parties