Shiels v Cruikshank
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Normand,Lord Oaksey,Lord Reid,Lord Cohen |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 1953 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1953] UKHL J0309-2 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 09 March 1953 |
[1953] UKHL J0309-2
House of Lords
Lord Normand
Lord Oaksey
Lord Reid
Lord Asquith of Bishopstone
Lord Cohen
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Shiels against Cruikshank, that the Committee had heard Counsel on Wednesday the 28th day of January last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Henry John Shiels, residing at 41 Baird Drive, Edinburgh 12, praying, That the matter of the Interlocutors set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland (Lord Blades) of the 3d of May 1951 and also an Interlocutor of the Lords of Session there of the Second Division of the 28th of June 1951, 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 Petitioner 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 Mrs. Catherine Brown Scott or Cruikshank 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 Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Interlocutors of the 3d day of May 1951 and of the 28th day of June 1951, 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 Appellant do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondent the Costs incurred by her in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That unless the Costs, certified as aforesaid, shall be paid to the party entitled to the same within one calendar month from the date of the certificate thereof, the Cause shall be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Court of Session in Scotland, or to the Judge acting as Vacation Judge, to issue such Summary Process or Diligence for the recovery of such Costs as shall be lawful and necessary.
My Lords,
The Appellant's Counsel made it clear that the real issue in the appeal is whether the Interlocutor of the Second Division appealed against unduly restricts the scope of the trial before a jury which has been allowed.
The Respondent, the pursuer, sued the Appellant for a sum of £40,000 in name of damages suffered by her in respect of the death of her husband from injuries received in a street accident in Edinburgh on 8th October, 1949. She averred that the accident was caused by the fault of the Appellant, who was riding a motor bicycle which collided with her husband. There is no question that these averments are relevant. On damages, she averred that she was "dependent upon the deceased for support, and lived with him until his death … At the time of the said accident the income of the deceased amounted to approximately £22,000 per annum, of which at least £17,000 was represented by salaries and fees, which ceased with his death". In his answers the Appellant, after a general denial, averred that the Respondent "has been left with ample means for support for the rest of her life. She is liferented in the residue of the estate of the deceased. The deceased left moveable estate of over £60,000 and … substantial heritable estate. The deceased also bequeathed to the pursuer moveable property of considerable value. The defender also believes and avers that the pursuer has a substantial private fortune available for her support." In reply the Respondent admitted that she has a liferent in the residue of the deceased's estate, which she estimated at about £24,000 and that she has certain private means. She denied that the deceased left any heritable estate. She also added this plea in law:
"The defender's averments relating to the private means of the … pursuer being irrelevant, should not be admitted to probation."
The Lord Ordinary on the motion of the Respondent appointed the cause to be heard in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Catriona Margaret Mackintosh And Others V. Philip Alexander Morrice's Executors
...support under section 1 of the 1976 Act (supra). Whether there was loss of support was a broad question of fact (see Cruikshank v Shiels 1953 SC (HL) 1, Lord Normand at 4-5); the legislature having chosen not to define the words in any way. The pursuers had received support from their paren......
-
Tesheira v Gulf View Medical Centre Ltd and Roopchand
...wrong. It is clear that the value of the dependency cannot be taken at such an arbitrary figure and must always depend on facts. See Shiels v. Cruickshank [1953] 1 All ER 874, [1953] 1 WLR (HL) 533, Mallett v. McMonagle [1970] AC 166, [1969] 2 All ER 178, per Lord Diplock at 176 D-G, Taylor......
-
Dickson v National Coal Board
...1949 S. C. 496, 1951 S. C. (H. L.) 15; and M'Leish v. Fulton & SonsSC, 1955 S. C. 46. 1 1951 S. C. 741, Lord Patrick at p. 747; 1953 S. C. (H. L.) 1, Lord Normand at p. 5. Reference was also made to Gibson v. KyleSC, 1933 S. C. 30, Lord Hunter at p. 32. 2 1926 S. C. 544, at p. 547. 3 1949 S......
-
Audrey Weir &c V. Robertson Group (construction) Ltd &c
...that it was "not logical". He also submitted that it was not consistent with the decision of the House of Lords in Shiels v Cruickshank 1953 S.C. (H.L.) 1. I do not accept that the decision in Cruickshank is inconsistent with the approach adopted in Brown v Ferguson and the succeeding cases......