A Scottish regulation agency has failed in its bid to keep away from an alleged negligence declare by arguing that English courts had no jurisdiction over work carried out in Scotland.
Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie LLP, which has no administrative center outdoors Scotland, was instructed by vitality firm Cornwall Renewable Developments Ltd to assist acquire planning permission for wind farms on two websites in Cornwall.
Planning permission was refused by Cornwall Council and an enchantment of that call was filed and later withdrawn.
Cornwall Renewable Developments claimed that Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie had been negligent in its work. The agency denies the allegation.
In the meantime the agency argued that the Excessive Courtroom didn’t have jurisdiction to attempt the declare as, although the companies associated to English regulation contracts for websites in England, the dual-qualified solicitor who acted within the matter was in Scotland when work was carried out.
After the Excessive Courtroom rejected this argument the agency appealed saying the ruling wrongly recognized ‘the principal “obligation in query” underneath the…retainer’.
Ruling within the enchantment, Recorder Richard Smith, sitting as a decide of the Chancery Division, mentioned: ‘This declare issues the supply of a faulty draft settlement to the claimant in England, to be used in England.’ Cornwall Renewable Developments argued that the ‘place of efficiency’ was the place it obtained the product, which was England, whereas Wright, Johnston & Mackenzie mentioned it was the place the underlying authorized work was carried out, which was in Scotland.
In Cornwall Renewable Developments Ltd v Wright, Johnstone & Mackenzie LLP the decide mentioned: ‘On the logic of the defendant’s case, if [the solicitor acting in the matter] occurred to have undertaken the related work whereas on a enterprise journey to New York, the “place of efficiency” can be the USA despite the fact that that would not be mentioned to be the intention of both social gathering.’
Smith rejected the enchantment, discovering that the earlier judgment had been thought-about ‘with acceptable care and with out falling into error’.