Grant & Sons, Ltd v. Magistrates of Dufftown [1924] ScotLR 650 (15 July 1924)

Grant & Sons, Ltd v. Magistrates of Dufftown [1924] ScotLR 650 (15 July 1924)

The action was, in substance, a dispute over the meaning and effect of competing water rights under private titles, not an action for acts done in pursuance of public duty. Therefore, the defenders were not entitled to have their expenses taxed as between solicitor and client under the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893.

Citation
[1924] ScotLR 650
Parties
Pursuer: William Grant & Sons, Limited; Defender: Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of the Burgh of Dufftown
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 July 1924
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) on Expenses After Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Motion for expenses as between agent and client refused; expenses to be taxed on the ordinary scale.
Legal Topics
Expenses (costs), Taxation of Costs, Servitude Rights, Public Authorities Protection Act 1893, Water Rights, Agent and Client Expenses
Civil Procedure Property Law Administrative Law Expenses (costs) Taxation of Costs Servitude Rights Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 Water Rights +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Grant & Sons, Limited

Pursuer

Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of the Burgh of Dufftown

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) on Expenses After Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders (local authority) were entitled to have their expenses taxed as between solicitor and client under section 1(b) of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 in an unsuccessful action concerning competing water rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The action was, in substance, a dispute over the meaning and effect of competing water rights under private titles, not an action for acts done in pursuance of public duty. Therefore, the defenders were not entitled to have their expenses taxed as between solicitor and client under the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893.

Court Disposition

Motion for expenses as between agent and client refused; expenses to be taxed on the ordinary scale.

Orders

  • Refusal of defenders' motion for expenses as between agent and client under the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893.
  • Expenses to be taxed on the ordinary scale.