Williams v A. & W. Hemphill Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Reid,Lord Guest,Lord Pearce,Lord Upjohn,Lord Pearson |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] UKHL J0622-3 |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 22 June 1966 |
[1966] UKHL J0622-3
House of Lords
Lord Reid
Lord Guest
Lord Pearce
Lord Upjohn
Lord Pearson
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause A. & W. Hemphill Limited against Williams (Assisted Person) (with the consent and concurrence of George Williams his father and curator and administrator-at-law), that the Committee had heard Counsel on Thursday the 12th day of May last, upon the Petition and Appeal of A. & W. Hemphill Limited. 369 Helen Street, Glasgow, praying. That the matter of the Interlocutors set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in Scotland (Lord kilbrandon) of the 13th of January 1965 and also two Interlocutors of the Lords of Session there of the Second Division of the 30th of July and of the 14th of October 1965 respectively, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Interlocutors might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Derek Douglas Williams (Assisted Person) (with the consent and concurrence of George Williams, his father and curator and administrator-at-law), 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 13th day of January 1965, of the 30th day of July 1965 and of the 14th day of October 1965, 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 Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondent the Costs incurred by him 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,
For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Pearce, I would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had more difficulty over this case than the rest of your Lordships. But in view of the concurrent findings in the Courts below and the fact that the rest of your Lordships are unanimously of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed, I am not prepared to dissent from that decision.
My Lords,
The pursuer, a boy of 16, was very seriously injured in an accident while he was a passenger in the defenders' lorry driven by their servant. The accident was caused by the driver's negligence; but the defenders contend that at the time of the accident he was acting outside the scope of his employment with them and that therefore they are not liable. The Lord Ordinary rejected this contention and awarded the pursuer £24,000 damages against the defenders. They appealed unsuccessfully to the Second Division of the Court of Session.
The pursuer was a member of the Boys' Brigade of Glasgow who went to Benderloch in Argyll for their summer camp. For the return to Glasgow it was arranged that the baggage and 19 of the boys should be transported in the defenders' lorry driven by their servant. The shortest route to Glasgow lay along the shores of Loch Lomond. Some of the boys, however, asked the driver if they could be transported by way of Stirling, which lies to the east of the direct route. In view of the extra mileage involved the driver reported this request to the adult in charge of the expedition who was going to return separately in his own car. He refused this request but he did assent to the boys being driven to Connel Station (which is on the direct route to Glasgow before the road to Stirling diverges from it), in order that they might help a party of the Girls' Guildry who had been camping near the boys and were returning by train on the same day to Dollar, which lies some miles to the East of Stirling. At Connel Station the girls would welcome help in transhipping their baggage from the local train into the train from Connel to Stirling.
The party of boys were duly driven to Connel and helped the girls with their baggage. There they repeated to the driver their request to be driven home via Stirling so that they could again meet the girls on the train at Stirling. He was persuaded to grant their request. At Stirling some of the boys, still full of the holiday spirit, managed to prevail on the driver to go to Dollar before returning to Glasgow. The pursuer was not of these who persuaded the driver. While the lorry was making for Dollar the accident occurred.
The defenders' servant was employed by them as a driver and he had been ordered to drive the boys and their baggage to Glasgow. His duty was, by implication, to drive by the most...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Debbie Powell v Bulk Liquid Carriers Ltd and Others
...also relied, in support of his submissions, on a number of cases, including Twine v Bean's Express Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 202, Williams v A & W Hemphill Ltd (1966) SC (HL) 31, Rambarran v Gurrucharran [1970] 1 All ER 749 and Morgans v Launchbury and Others [1972] 2 All ER 606. Learned Queen's ......
-
O'Keeffe v Hickey and Others
...656 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO v LOCKHART 1942 AC 591 LIMPUS v LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS CO 1862 1 H & C 526 WILLIAMS v A & W HEMPHILL LTD 1966 SC (HL) 31 SHORTT v CMSR OF GARDA SIOCHANA & ORS 2007 4 IR 587 2007 IESC 9 174/2006 - Murray Denham Hardiman [Murray concur.] Geoghegan Fennelly [Mu......
-
Jalena Vaickuviene And Others V. J. Sainsbury Plc
...(paras [26] et seq), Lord Steyn approved (para 18) of the "frolic of his own" approach, as exemplified by Williams v A & W Hemphill 1966 SC (HL) 31, and the usefulness of the Salmond formulation as a "broad" and "practical" test (para 20), albeit within the overarching concept of whether it......
-
Prince Alfred College Incorporated(Appellant) v ADC
...v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215 at 226 [19]. 63Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215 at 224 [17]. 64Williams v A & W Hemphill Ltd [1966] SC (HL) 31. 65Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141; [1976] 1 All ER 97. 66Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215 at 227 [20]. 67Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd......