RUSSELL v F. W. WOOLWORTH & Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 5. |
| Date | 06 November 1981 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE.
Lord Murray.
International lawDelictJurisdictionLocus delictiReparationInjury caused by goods badly manufactured and packed in EnglandGoods supplied to and handled in ScotlandMaterial injuria in ScotlandWhether whole or material injuria must occur in ScotlandWhether common law changed by statuteLaw Reform (Jurisdiction in Delict) (Scotland) Act 1971 (cap. 55), sec. 1 (1).1
A stockroom assistant employed by F. W. Woolworth & Co. Ltd. in Dunfermline was sorting cardboard boxes containing plastic bottles of shampoo manufactured and packaged by E. R. Holloway Ltd. ("Holloways") in England. When lifting one of the boxes the bottom of the box fell out. In attempting to prevent the contents falling to the floor the assistant injured herself.
It was averred that the reason for the bottom of the box giving way was that some of the bottles of shampoo had leaked out soaking the bottom of the box. The bottles had not been properly secured against reasonably foreseeable shocks and stresses of transport. It was averred that it was the duty of Holloways to take reasonable care for the safety of persons who would handle the boxes and bottles.
Held, after a procedure roll discussion, (1) that the purpose of sec. 1 (1) of the Law Reform (Jurisdiction in Delict) (Scotland) Act 1971 was not to change the common law rules relating to the locus delicti of a delict but to extend the ordinary jurisdiction of the court in delict and quasi-delict by abolishing the need for personal service within the jurisdiction.
(2) That, at common law, proceedings in Scotland might be founded on delict or quasi-delict where there was material injuria in Scotland, whether or not there was injuria in some other jurisdiction also.
(3) That the stocktaking assistant had averred a relevant case of a material injuria in Scotland in respect that there was averred a supply of the goods in Scotland in which Holloways had failed to take care.
Agnes Russell raised an action of reparation for personal injuries against F. W. Woolworth & Company Limited, her employer, and against E. R. Holloway Limited, the manufacturer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Arab-Malaysian Prima Realty Sdn Bhd and Others; Sri Kelangkota-Rakan Engineering J Sdn Bhd and Others
-
Docherty's Executors v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
...Law Medical 1; 99 BMLR 139; The Times, 24 October 2007; (2007) 104 (42) LSG 34; 157 NLJ 1542; 151 SJLB 1366 Russell v FW Woolworth & Co Ltd 1982 SC 20; 1982 SLT 428 Soutar v Peters 1912 1 SLT 111 Walters v Babergh District Council (1983) 82 LGR 235; The Times, 21 June 1983; (1983) 127 SJ 59......
-
PANNIR SELVAM A/L SINNAIYAH
...by the where Indian Gopal Prima Sri Supreme Engineering JV Realty Sdn Ram JCA Court Bhd & Ors in adopting in the Gangabai Chhabubai AIR [1982] SC 20, In my judgment, s. 92 of the Evidence Act had nothing whatever to do with this case. The judge was in error when he thought that it did. The ......
-
Phoobalan A/L Sinnan @ Sinnacoundar v Rajeantheran A/L Marimuthu, 02-02-2019
...is settled by high authority. I will not go through all the cases here. Suffice that I mention just one. In Gangabai v. Chhabubai AIR [1982] SC 20 at p. 23, the Supreme Court of India rendered the following exposition on s. 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, upon which our statute is based: "........