M'Guire v. G. Paterson & Co. [1912] ScotLR 289 (13 December 1912)

M'Guire v. G. Paterson & Co. [1912] ScotLR 289 (13 December 1912)

Mutual error as to the extent of injury does not constitute essential error invalidating the agreement; lack of consensus in idem placitum is not established where both parties agree to settle a claim under the Act; sheriff-clerk is not obliged to inquire into adequacy of payment unless information is provided; the agreement was properly registered and binding.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 289
Parties
Pursuer: Bernard M'Guire; Defenders: G. Paterson & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 December 1912
Procedural Posture
Action for Reduction and Declarator / Inner House Appeal, Reclaiming Note
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutor adhered to; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Master and Servant, Contractual Error, Registration of Agreements
Employment Law Personal Injury Statutory Compensation Workmen's Compensation Master and Servant Contractual Error Registration of Agreements

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard M'Guire

Pursuer

G. Paterson & Company

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Action for Reduction and Declarator / Inner House Appeal, Reclaiming Note

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mutual error as to extent of injury invalidates settlement agreement
  2. 2 Whether lack of consensus in idem placitum prevents registration under Workmen's Compensation Act
  3. 3 Whether sheriff-clerk is obliged to inquire into adequacy of compensation before registration

Ratio Decidendi

Mutual error as to the extent of injury does not constitute essential error invalidating the agreement; lack of consensus in idem placitum is not established where both parties agree to settle a claim under the Act; sheriff-clerk is not obliged to inquire into adequacy of payment unless information is provided; the agreement was properly registered and binding.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutor adhered to; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Action for reduction and declarator dismissed.
  • Memorandum of agreement remains recorded.