Corporation of Greenock v Glasgow and South Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 July 1917 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1917] UKHL J0723-1 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 23 July 1917 |
[1917] UKHL J0723-1
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Monday the 30th day of April, as on Tuesday the 1st, Thursday the 3rd, Friday the 4th, Monday the 7th, Tuesday the 8th, and Thursday the 10th, days of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of the Corporation of Greenock, praying, that the matter of the Interlocutors set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland (Lord Dewar), of the 14th of May 1914; and also an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there, of the First Division, of the 8th of July 1916, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutors might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King in His Court of Parliament might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Interlocutors, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same are hereby, Affirmed, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University College Cork v Electricity Supply Board (1)
...in a number of cases involving dam operators in other jurisdictions, such as Iodice, Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Railway [1917] AC 556 and East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v. Kent [1941] AC 74. UCC submitted that there are a number of problems with this standard, the primary one......
-
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan and Others
...& Odam's Chemical Manure Co. v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co. 1877, 9 Ch. Div. 503); Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Railway, 1917 A.C. 556.) 8The second point, which was raised as a defence, was that the Respondents never consented to the making of the culvert as a substitute for a ......
-
Susan Louise Sabet Or Hughes And Another Against Fife Council And Norman Milne
...of the duty to protect a neighbouring proprietor against abnormal risk of harm by flooding (Caledonian Railway v Greenock Corporation 1917 SC HL 56, Sedleigh Denfield v O’Callaghan 1940 AC 880). There was a positive duty on the second defender to remove obstructions Kennedy v Glenbelle, Nob......
-
University College Cork v Electricity Supply Board (ESB)
...in English, Scottish and Canadian law, specifically Wegenast v. Ernst [1858] 8 UCCP 456, Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1917] A.C. 556, Kerr v. Earl of Orkney (1857) 20 D 298, Smith v. Ontario & Minnesota Power Co. Ltd (1918) 45 D.L.R. 266, Canadian Westinghouse Co. Ltd. v.......
-
Mr Fletcher as the Quintessential Nigerian: Could a More In-Depth Analysis of the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Reveala Uniquely Nigerian Tort?
...on Contract and Tort301.4Carstairs v Taylor(1871) LR 6 Ex 217, 221; Nicholls v Marsland (1876) LR 6 Ex D1; Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry [1917]AC 556 — these defences were approved bythe Nigerian Supreme Court in Umudje v Shell BP Petroleum Development Co of NigeriaLimited (1975) 9-11 SC 15......