Soofi v Dykes [2017] ScotCS CSIH_40 (28 June 2017)

Soofi v Dykes [2017] ScotCS CSIH_40 (28 June 2017)

The pursuer's pleadings gave fair notice of the case against the defender, and the method of proof by inference from facts and circumstances is legitimate. The defender will not be taken by surprise at proof, and the matter should proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSIH_40
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Sajjad Soofi; Defender and Reclaimer: Jeffrey Martin Dykes
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal Against Interlocutor Refusing to Sustain Plea to Relevancy and Allowing Proof
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Duty of Care, Fair Notice, Pleadings Specification, Proof by Inference
Professional Negligence Contract Law Solicitor's Duty of Care Fair Notice Pleadings Specification Proof by Inference

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sajjad Soofi

Pursuer and Respondent

Jeffrey Martin Dykes

Defender and Reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) / Appeal Against Interlocutor Refusing to Sustain Plea to Relevancy and Allowing Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pursuer's pleadings gave fair notice to defender
  2. 2 Whether pursuer's method of proof by inference is legitimate
  3. 3 Whether lack of specification should bar proof

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's pleadings gave fair notice of the case against the defender, and the method of proof by inference from facts and circumstances is legitimate. The defender will not be taken by surprise at proof, and the matter should proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor of 6 January 2017
  • Proof before answer allowed on parties’ respective averments