Ross v Ross
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | No.2. |
| Date | 23 November 1926 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Viscount Dunedin, Ld. Atkinson, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Lord Sumner, Lord Blanesburgh.
ProcessAppeal to House of LordsAppeal without leaveCompetency Appeal from interlocutory judgmentsCourt of Session Act, 1808 (48 Geo. III. cap. 151), sec. 15.
Observations by Lord Dunedin on the provisions of sec. 15 of the Court of Session Act, 1808, which regulate the right of appeal from the Court of Session to the House of Lords when the judgment appealed from is an interlocutory judgment.
(In the Court of Session, 20th July 19261926 S. C. 1038.)
In this action Dame Patricia Ellison or Ross sought divorce from her husband, Sir Charles Henry Augustus Frederick Lockhart Ross, Baronet, of Balnagown, Ross-shire, on the ground of his adultery.
The defender averred that he was domiciled in the United States of America, and pleaded, inter alia, that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Scots Courts in matrimonial causes.
On 25th November 1925 the Lord Ordinary (Morison), after a proof, sustained the plea.
On 20th July 1926 the First Division recalled the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, repelled the plea of no jurisdiction, and remitted to him to proceed as accords. The judgment of the First Division was unanimous.
The defender presented a petition to the First Division for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.* On 15th October 1926 the Division refused leave.
Thereafter the defender presented a petition and appeal to the House of Lords against the interlocutor of 20th July 1926; and the pursuer presented a petition against the competency of the appeal, on the ground that the interlocutor was an interlocutory judgment, within the meaning of section 15 of the Act 48 Geo. III. cap. 151, in which the judges of the Division were unanimous.
On 23rd November 1926 the agents of the parties appeared before the Appeal Committee of the House of Lords (consisting of Viscount Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Lord Sumner, and Lord Blanesburgh).
Argued for the defender;The fact that the Division had refused leave to appeal did not preclude appeal if the refusal was unwarranted under the Act, or if the interlocutor appealed against was an interlocutor which did not in fact require the leave of the Court.1 The interlocutor here in question was in the latter category; the fact that it might be in form an interlocutory judgment was immaterial, if in fact it disposed of matters involving the merits of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd
...judgment which sustained a dilatory defence where the action was not dismissed, unless express leave be given by the Court. 20 In Ross v Ross 1927 SC (HL) 4, at p 6, Lord Dunedin said that the disability imposed on the House which forbade the hearing of appeals against interlocutory judgme......
-
William Beggs (fe) For Judicial Review Of Decisions And Acts Etc
...Workers UnionSC1952 SC 92; 1952 SLT 130 Portland (Duke of) v Woods' TrsUNK 1927 SC (HL) 1; 1926 SLT 734; (1926) 26 Ll L Rep 1 Ross v Ross 1927 SC (HL) 4; 1927 SLT 2 Steel Co of Scotland v Tancred Arrol & Co (1889) 26 SLR 465; (1890) LR App Cas 125 Stewart v KennedyUNK (1889) 16 R 890 The ca......
-
Scott and Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 1)
...Davidson v Scottish MinistersSC 2002 SC 205; 2002 SLT 420 Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 2)SC 2003 SC 103; 2002 SLT 1231 Ross v Ross 1927 SC (HL) 4; 1927 SLT 2 The incidental petition was considered by an Appeal Committee comprising Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Hope o......
-
Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 2)
...House only, and that its exercise of the discretion as to whether or not to grant leave cannot be controlled by this House: Ross v Ross 1927 SC (HL) 4, 6 per Viscount Dunedin. That being so, the short answer to Mr O'Neill's argument is that it is not open to your Lordships either to grant l......