B.F.S. (DUNDEE) LIMITED v. DAVID MURPHIE [1999] ScotSC 1 (20th January, 1999)

B.F.S. (DUNDEE) LIMITED v. DAVID MURPHIE [1999] ScotSC 1 (20th January, 1999)

The pleadings, particularly in Article 3, disclose a relevant case that the defender may have been unjustifiably enriched due to the pursuers' error of fact regarding the tax implications of the severance payment, allegedly compounded by the defender's failure to disclose material information. This is sufficient to allow proof before answer on the issue of unjust enrichment.

Citation
[1999] ScotSC 1
Parties
Pursuer: B. F. S. (Dundee) Limited; Defender: David Murphie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification, Allowing Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed; defender's preliminary plea not sustained; Article 3 not excluded from probation.
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Condictio Indebiti, Repetition, Recompense, Mistake of Fact, Mistake of Law, Taxation of Severance Payments
Civil Law Company Law Employment Law Unjust Enrichment Condictio Indebiti Repetition Recompense Mistake of Fact +2 more

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

Parties

B. F. S. (Dundee) Limited

Pursuer

David Murphie

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Relevancy and Specification, Allowing Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers are entitled to recover from the defender a sum paid to the Inland Revenue as income tax on a severance payment, on the basis of unjust enrichment or mistake (condictio indebiti).
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose a relevant case of error (fact or law) sufficient to allow proof before answer.

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings, particularly in Article 3, disclose a relevant case that the defender may have been unjustifiably enriched due to the pursuers' error of fact regarding the tax implications of the severance payment, allegedly compounded by the defender's failure to disclose material information. This is sufficient to allow proof before answer on the issue of unjust enrichment.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed; defender's preliminary plea not sustained; Article 3 not excluded from probation.

Orders

  • Allows parties, before answer, a proof of their respective averments, under reservation of the first plea-in-law for the defender.
  • Appoints the cause to the procedure roll of 9th February 1999 to assign a suitable diet for proof and to hear parties on expenses.