Ross Harper & Murphy v Banks
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2000 |
| Date | 11 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | No 49 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE
Lord Hamilton
Partnership—Liability of partner to firm—Partner's negligence rendering firm liable to client—Firm suing partner for loss incurred in discharging liability to client—Whether partner liable to firm for his own negligence—Appropriate standard of care
Contract—Sale agreement—Indemnity—Partner acquiring solicitor's branch office from firm—Sale agreement stipulating that partner had no claims against firm and vice versa other than as set out in agreement and declaring that partner would not assume or be deemed to assume obligations incurred by firm prior to settlement date—Firm indemnifying partner for losses arising out of business prior to settlement date with exception of professional misconduct complaints—Firm suing partner for loss incurred in discharging liability to client by reason of partner's negligence before settlement date—Client's loss arising after settlement date—Whether firm's claim excluded
A firm of solicitors sued a former partner, B, for reparation for the loss which the firm had sustained as a result of B's alleged negligence in the course of concluding a loan transaction in 1990 for a client of the firm. As a result of B's alleged negligence the client had sued the firm in respect of the loss which the client had sustained some time after November 1992. The firm compromised the client's claim extra-judicially and thereafter sought recovery from B on the basis of breach of contract and quasi-delict in respect of the excess on the firm's professional indemnity policy which the firm had required to pay to the client. On 3 May 1992, which date was specified as the settlement date, the firm and B executed an agreement under which the firm sold to B the business of the firm at the firm's branch office at which B had previously worked. Clause 3 of the agreement provided that for the avoidance of doubt it was expressly declared and agreed that, except as expressly provided in the agreement, B should “not assume or be deemed to assume or be responsible for any debt, obligation, liability or other responsibility whatsoever incurred by or on behalf of the [firm], prior to the settlement date, in relation to the Business” and the firm agreed jointly and severally to indemnify B in this respect. By cl 8.1.1 the firm undertook to indemnify B against all losses, costs, liabilities and expenses arising out of or in connection with the ownership of the assets or the business or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jessie Duncan And Another V. The Mfv Marigold Pd 145 And Others
...of the surviving partners for losses due to their misconduct or negligence, of the kind considered in Ross Harper & Murphy v Banks 2000 S.C.500). If the executors wish to guard against the risk of a diminution in the value of the partnership assets, their remedy is again to seek an order fo......
-
Tann v Herrington
...may be guilty of negligence.” The court in each case adopted the standard set out in Thomas v Atherton. 62 In the Scottish case of Ross Harper & Murphy v Banks [2000] SLT 699 Lord Hamilton in the Outer House also had to consider whether a default by a solicitor to a client was such as to co......
-
Michael Hasted v Calvin Costello & Others
...damages for breach of contract:Lister v Romford Ice [1956] AC 158, per Lord Tucker at 181. 13 InRoss Harper & Murra and ors v Scott Banks [2000] SLT 699 the Court noted that ‘the situations will be relatively rare when an employer will seek to recover from his employee loss occasioned by vi......
-
William Sim V. David Howat &c
...formulated in different ways (Winsor v Schroeder (1979) 129 NLJ 1266, Tann v Herrington [2009] PNLR 22, and Ross Harper & Murphy v Banks 2000 SLT 699). But I consider that Mr Sim was correct in his concession. On any of those standards his failure to read the letters thoroughly and communic......
-
Duties
...assets for the benefit of the 8 Winsor v Schroeder (1979) 129 NLJ 1266 at 1266 per Woolf J. 9 Ross Harper & Murphy and others v Banks [2000] PNLR 631 at [36] per Lord Hamilton. 10 Broadhurst v Broadhurst [2006] EWHC 2727 (Ch), [2006] All ER (D) 143 (Oct). 11 Tann v Herrington [2009] EWHC 44......
-
Table of Cases
...14 Rolfe and Bank of Australasia v Flower, Salting & Co (1866) LR 1 PC 27, 35 LJPC 13, 12 Jur NS 345, PC 90 Ross Harper & Murphy v Banks [2000] PNLR 631, 2000 SC 500, Ct of Sess (OH) 61 Sahota v Sohi [2006] EWHC 344 (Ch), [2006] All ER (D) 01 (Mar) 136 Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 2......
-
Rights of relief, subrogation and unjustified enrichment in Scots law
...unjustied enrichment or recompense quantum lucratus. Stair’s Institutions120 and Bankton’s Institute121 regarded mutual obligations Banks 2000 SC 500 at 505 (OH) per Lord Hamilton. In addition the cautioner is entitled to interest on sum paid to creditor and reasonable expenses of eg defen......