M'Gilp v Caledonian Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 1904 |
| Date | 26 October 1904 |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord President, Lord Adam, Lord M'Laren, Lord Kinnear.
Expenses—Jury Trial—Modification.—
In an action raised in the Court of Session by an inspector of police against a railway company for £500 of damages for assault, the jury awarded £10 of damages. The defenders had made no tender.
The defenders moved that expenses to the pursuer should be subject to modification, in respect that the case should have been tried in the Sheriff Court.
The Court refused the motion.
Alexander M'Gilp, inspector of police, Greenock, raised an action in the Court of Session against the Caledonian Railway Company in which he claimed £500 as damages for assault committed upon him by three servants of the Company, acting within the scope of their employment.
The case was tried before the Lord President and a jury.
The jury awarded the pursuer £10 of damages. The defenders had made no tender.
The pursuer having moved the Court to apply the verdict and find him entitled to expenses, the defenders moved that expenses to the pursuer should be modified, and argued;—The case should have been raised and tried in the Sheriff Court. The Court would modify expenses when the trifling sum awarded shewed that the case should have been tried in the Sheriff Court.1 [Lord Kinnear.—Is there any case in which expenses have been modified, under circumstances similar to the present, in an action raised in the Court of Session?] It was true that the cases quoted had originated in the Sheriff Court, but here the argument in favour of modification was even stronger because of the increased expense unnecessarily incurred in the initial stages of the action.
Counsel for the pursuer were not called upon.
Lord...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miss D Noble v Jill Brown T/a Nice Stuff: 4107712/2020
...payment were to the amount of the redundancy payment to which the employee would have been entitled apart from that other provision. 5 (7) F4 (8) Words in s. 162(6) substituted (1.10.2006) by The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/1031), regs. 1(1), 49(1), Sch. 8 para. 32......
-
Barker v. Barker,
...2022-07-28T13:24:33Z Standard 034a106e-6316-442c-ad35-738afd673d2b cddc1229-ac2a-4b97-b78a-0e5cacb5865c 1c0f09db-7f4b-495f-9507-d78a7d81a7dc Clean Clean false 6 pt 2 2 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE 0 ...
-
Woods et. al. v. University of Ottawa,
...2022-01-05T14:58:52Z Standard 034a106e-6316-442c-ad35-738afd673d2b cddc1229-ac2a-4b97-b78a-0e5cacb5865c 7f4aaa22-d341-4e02-8e91-fb3de5270567 6 pt 2 false false false EN-CA JA AR-SA