Rogano: Parties settle at 11th hour - but Supreme Court continues to hear the case
The Rogano dispute was settled out of court after years of wrangling but the Supreme Court heard the contract dispute, saying it had significance for Scots Law
The Supreme Court has heard arguments in the legal row over the Rogano restaurant - despite parties reaching a financial agreement at the 11th hour.
Lawyers for Forthwell Limited, which has traded as Rogano since 1935, and its landlord, Pontegadea UK, said they were “mortified” by the situation.
The restaurant has been closed since the Covid-19 pandemic after becoming unsafe due to repeated flooding and an electrical fire.
The two sides had been in a legal battle over whether Pontegadea should compensate Forthwell for lost profits, with repairs still incomplete.
The row was due to be heard at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, which was sitting in Glasgow City Chambers.
However, at the opening of the hearing, David Thomson KC, said his client Forthwell and the other party reached an agreement on Tuesday evening.
The court had only been informed of the deal at 11.30pm on Tuesday night.
Roddy Dunlop KC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, told the five Supreme Court judges: “I am rightly mortified to be standing here in this situation.”
Mr Thomson had told the court it was a “matter of considerable professional embarrassment” and and he had only recently learned that parties had “been able to resolve the gap that existed between them”.
“I cannot present that to the court as an acceptable narrative, because it is not,” he added.
“I fully accept that settlement of the proceedings on the literal eve of the appeal before this court is, to put it mildly, highly unsatisfactory.”
Lord Reed, the president of the Supreme Court, replied: “Yes, that is putting it mildly.”
The justices, led by Lord Briggs, decided the contract dispute was of sufficient significance that they decided to hear the case regardless.
At least one other case is paused pending the outcome of the Rogano dispute.
Lord Reed told the court: “It is a matter of public importance that the time of the court is used in the public interest, and it is in the public interest that we should resolve the legal question raised by the case, which will be important in other cases.”
Court documents for the hearing said that in 2013, Forthwell assigned its interest in the lease of the Rogano to a subsidiary, Lynnet Leisure Rogano Limited, which continued trading at the site under a “licence to occupy”.
Forthwell Ltd is linked to Glasgow pub tycoon James Mortimer while the landlord is 90-year-old Spanish billionaire and Zara founder Amancio Ortega.
Ortega, who is believed to be worth around £90 billion, owns the building through his firm Pontegadea UK Limited.
The Rogano was damaged by flooding in December 2020 and January 2021, which caused an electrical fire, leaving the building unsafe, but the two sides had been unable to agree on the scope of the repairs.
It had been one of Glasgow’s most glamorous and well-known nightspots, playing host to the likes of Elizabeth Taylor, Mick Jagger and Kylie Minogue.
Forthwell had claimed that as Pontegadea had failed to repair the site, as required by the tenancy agreement, it had caused Lynnet Leisure to suffer a loss of profits, and took legal action seeking to reclaim both “past and anticipated future losses”.
READ MORE: Malcolm Offord hires veteran ex-Labour MP as advisor as Reform looks to re-brand in Scotland
But Pontegadea said Forthwell could not recover profits lost by Lynnet Leisure as the latter was a third party.
While the Outer House of the Court of Session ruled in Forthwell’s favour in June 2024, that decision was partly overturned by the Inner House in October that year, with the company then taking the case to the Supreme Court.
In his submissions, Mr Dunlop said that if the court found in favour of Rogano, it would cause a “schism between the law of Scotland and England, when cross-border trade is the norm”.
He argued that any entity that suffered loss due to a breach of contract could make a claim, even if they were not a party to the contract.
This, he said, would cause uncertainty for all contracts in Scotland.
Arguments before Lord Reed, Lord Stephens, Lord Doherty, Lord Hodge and Lady Simler concluded on Wednesday afternoon, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.