Robertson v kinneil Cannel and Coking Coal Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1931 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1931] UKHL J1215-4 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Date | 15 December 1931 |
[1931] UKHL J1215-4
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Tuesday as on Thursday last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Andrew Robertson, Pauper, 438, Glasgow Road, Whitegates, Wishaw, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutors set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute of Lanarkshire, at Glasgow, of the 16th day of April, 1929, so far as regards the words "and as a matter of fact the way and gear were on the day of the accident in good condition and efficient:" and also the words "any inspection by them being incidental to their duties as manual labourers:" and also the words "but the circumstances were not such as to render this a necessary measure of prudence as the clippers were at their posts:" and also the words "That the defenders are not liable to the pursuer in reparation under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880:" and also the words "the Pleas in Law for the pursuer and" and also the words "Sustains the fourth, seventh and eighth Pleas in Law for the Defenders and assoilzies them from the conclusions of the Action: Finds the pursuer liable in expenses to the defenders: Allows an account thereof to be given in and remits the same when lodged to the Auditor of Court to tax and to report", and also an Interlocutor of the Sheriff of Lanark'-shire, of the 18th of November, 1929, and also an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session in Scotland, of the Second Division, of the 27th of June, 1930, so far as regards the words "Dismiss the Appeal, Affirm the Interlocutors of the Sheriff and the Sheriff-Substitute, dated 18th November, 1929, and 16th April, 1929:" and also the word "respectively" and also the words " and 16th April, 1929: Of new assoilzie the defenders from the conclusions of the action, and Decern: Find the defenders and respondents entitled to expenses against the pursuer and appellant in the Appeal to this Court, but modified to two-thirds of the taxed amount, and remit the account, along with the accounts of expenses found due in the Sheriff Court to the Auditor to tax and to report", might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutors, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ronald v Gilmartin
...1107. 8 Dolan v. Anderson & LyellUNK, (1885) 12 R. 804, Lord Craighill at p. 808. 9 Robertson v. Kinneil Cannel and Coking Coal Co.SC,1932 S. C. (H. L.) 14. 10 Sweeney v. M'GilvrayUNKUNK, 14 R. 105. Counsel also referred to the report in 24 S. L. R. 91, Lord Justice-Clerk Moncreiff at p. 11......
- Ronald v Gilmartin