54
action at her instance. As already noted, paragraphs 4 and 5 are determinedly not conceived in the pursuer's favour qua an individual, the capacity in which she sues (which is explicable because she seeks to enforce the Agreement in the capacity in which she had entered into it, and this was not qua partner of the firm).
[97] To establish her interest to bring these proceedings the pursuer relies on the diminution in her drawings as a partner of the firm, whose profitability is said to have been adversely affected as a result of the adoption of the Disputed Wording. The defender challenged this type of loss as too remote to be recoverable. The pursuer relied on the claim by the pursuer in Anthony for lost company dividends (or the diminution in drawings Vaughan, which raised a similar issue). In my view, these cases are readily distinguishable. Each was an action for personal injury by the person who suffered the legal wrong, and who was by reason of that personal injury unable to contribute his efforts to the business of the company (in Anthony) or partnership (in Vaughan). The loss of earnings in those cases took the form of a claim for the diminution in the pursuer's dividends from a limited company of which he was the sole director and employee and one of its two shareholders (the facts in Anthony) or diminution in partnership drawings (Vaughan). In that context, this head of claim is unremarkable as the company dividends or partnership drawings represented his remuneration and which was reduced as a consequence of the personal injury he suffered. Accordingly, the wrong committed by the defenders in each of those cases was committed against the pursuers and foreseeably caused a diminution in their ability to work for the company or partnership, and hence, affected the pursuers' earning capacity. In response to a question from the court, Mr Lindsay accepted that there was no similar link here (ie between any wrong to the pursuer and which affected her ability to contribute to the business of the
