Graham Ross McAteer against Matthew Chyla (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 12 (18 February 2026)

Graham Ross McAteer against Matthew Chyla (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2026] SACCIV 12 (18 February 2026)

The appellant's pleadings lacked sufficient specification regarding the basis for rescission, the mechanism for restitution, and the details of alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. The sheriff was correct to proceed with debate and to refuse admission of inadequately specified averments. The appeal is refused and the sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.

Citation
[2026] SACCIV 12
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Graham Ross McAteer; Defender and Appellant: Matthew Chyla
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutors
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Share Purchase Agreement, Rescission, Reduction, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Restitutio in Integrum, Pleading Requirements
Contract Law Civil Procedure Share Purchase Agreement Rescission Reduction Fraudulent Misrepresentation Restitutio in Integrum Pleading Requirements

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham Ross McAteer

Pursuer and Respondent

Matthew Chyla

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's pleadings on rescission and reduction of the SPA were sufficiently specified
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's averments of fraudulent misrepresentation met the required standard
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in proceeding with debate absent amendment or sist

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's pleadings lacked sufficient specification regarding the basis for rescission, the mechanism for restitution, and the details of alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. The sheriff was correct to proceed with debate and to refuse admission of inadequately specified averments. The appeal is refused and the sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • sheriff's interlocutors of 14 June 2025 and 18 July 2025 adhered to
  • expenses of the appeal awarded to the respondent