Walker v. Walker [1903] ScotLR 40_271 (20 January 1903)

Walker v. Walker [1903] ScotLR 40_271 (20 January 1903)

Mrs Murray, having instructed and inspired the action as dominus litis, is liable for the expenses of the curator ad litem, not the successful defender (father), even though she was not a formal party to the process.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 40_271
Parties
Pursuer (pupil Child): Christian Margaret Knox Walker; Pursuer (pupil Child): George Stewart Walker junior; Defender (father, Executor, Reclaimer): George Stewart Walker; Defender (aunt, Alleged Dominus Litis): Mrs Susan Forsyth Kerr Knox or Murray
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 January 1903
Procedural Posture
Civil (expenses/curator Ad Litem) / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved); Mrs Murray found liable for curator ad litem's expenses and for expenses of reclaiming-note.
Legal Topics
Expenses, Curator Ad Litem, Dominus Litis, Legitim, Reduction of Will
Civil Procedure Family Law Succession Expenses Curator Ad Litem Dominus Litis Legitim Reduction of Will

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christian Margaret Knox Walker

Pursuer (pupil Child)

George Stewart Walker junior

Pursuer (pupil Child)

George Stewart Walker

Defender (father, Executor, Reclaimer)

Mrs Susan Forsyth Kerr Knox or Murray

Defender (aunt, Alleged Dominus Litis)

Procedural Posture

Civil (expenses/curator Ad Litem) / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who is liable for the expenses of a curator ad litem appointed to pupil pursuers in an unsuccessful action against their father?
  2. 2 Whether the successful defender or the party instructing the action (alleged dominus litis) should bear the costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Murray, having instructed and inspired the action as dominus litis, is liable for the expenses of the curator ad litem, not the successful defender (father), even though she was not a formal party to the process.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved); Mrs Murray found liable for curator ad litem's expenses and for expenses of reclaiming-note.

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor reclaimed against.
  • Assoilzie the defender from the conclusions of the action, and decern.