Glasgow Corporation v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1907] ScotLR 190 (29 November 1907)

Glasgow Corporation v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1907] ScotLR 190 (29 November 1907)

Strathclyde Street was not a public highway de jure at the relevant date, but a private road over which the public had no legal right of passage. Section 39 of the 1845 Act did not apply, and the Special Act of 1872 did not impose an obligation on the railway company to maintain the roadway or bridge, as 'maintain' was not expressly included in the relevant clause. Thus, the railway company was under no obligation to maintain the roadway or bridge for the benefit of the local authority or public.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 190
Parties
Pursuer: Glasgow Corporation; Defender: Caledonian Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 November 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the conclusions relating to Strathclyde Street; reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's judgment adhered to.
Legal Topics
Obligation to Maintain Roadways, Definition of Public Highway, Statutory Interpretation, Railway Company Duties, Private Versus Public Roads
Administrative Law Transport Law Property Law Obligation to Maintain Roadways Definition of Public Highway Statutory Interpretation Railway Company Duties Private Versus Public Roads

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glasgow Corporation

Pursuer

Caledonian Railway Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Strathclyde Street was a 'public highway' within the meaning of section 39 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 at the relevant date
  2. 2 Whether the Caledonian Railway Company was under a statutory or contractual obligation to maintain the roadway and bridge over its railway at Strathclyde Street

Ratio Decidendi

Strathclyde Street was not a public highway de jure at the relevant date, but a private road over which the public had no legal right of passage. Section 39 of the 1845 Act did not apply, and the Special Act of 1872 did not impose an obligation on the railway company to maintain the roadway or bridge, as 'maintain' was not expressly included in the relevant clause. Thus, the railway company was under no obligation to maintain the roadway or bridge for the benefit of the local authority or public.

Court Disposition

Defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the conclusions relating to Strathclyde Street; reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's judgment adhered to.