Hughes v. The Thistle Chemical Co. and Others [1907] ScotLR 476 (02 March 1907)

Hughes v. The Thistle Chemical Co. and Others [1907] ScotLR 476 (02 March 1907)

The action of reduction and declarator is competent because the Sheriff’s act in ordering registration of the memorandum was ministerial, not judicial, and does not preclude challenge by the workman. Declarator that no agreement existed is the main remedy; reduction is ancillary. The Lord Ordinary was correct to allow proof of the pursuer’s averments.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 476
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: William Hughes junior; Defenders/reclaimers: The Thistle Chemical Company and Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 March 1907
Procedural Posture
Action of Reduction and Declarator / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Allowing Proof
Outcome
Reclaiming note refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to; proof allowed.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Reduction of Documents, Declarator, Competency of Actions, Ministerial Vs Judicial Acts
Labour Law Civil Procedure Workmen's Compensation Reduction of Documents Declarator Competency of Actions Ministerial Vs Judicial Acts

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

William Hughes junior

Pursuer/respondent

The Thistle Chemical Company and Others

Defenders/reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Action of Reduction and Declarator / Inner House, First Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Allowing Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an action of reduction and declarator is competent to challenge the registration of a memorandum of agreement under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897
  2. 2 Whether the Sheriff’s act in ordering registration is judicial or ministerial
  3. 3 Whether the registration of the memorandum precludes further challenge by the workman

Ratio Decidendi

The action of reduction and declarator is competent because the Sheriff’s act in ordering registration of the memorandum was ministerial, not judicial, and does not preclude challenge by the workman. Declarator that no agreement existed is the main remedy; reduction is ancillary. The Lord Ordinary was correct to allow proof of the pursuer’s averments.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming note refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor adhered to; proof allowed.

Orders

  • Repel defenders' pleas of incompetency and res judicata.
  • Allow proof of pursuer's averments.