Cameron v. Woolfson [1918] ScotLR 233 (25 January 1918)

Cameron v. Woolfson [1918] ScotLR 233 (25 January 1918)

The Court has discretion to admit evidence taken on commission even if not formally made part of the case before closing, and in the circumstances, it should be admitted.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 233
Parties
Pursuer: Angus Murray Cameron; Defender: Philip Woolfson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 January 1918
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages / Reclaiming Note (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decree
Outcome
judgment for pursuer affirmed; evidence admitted; pursuer entitled to one-half of the expenses of the reclaiming note
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Discretion of Court, Expenses, Proof, Commission Evidence
Civil Procedure Evidence Personal Injury Admissibility of Evidence Discretion of Court Expenses Proof Commission Evidence

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angus Murray Cameron

Pursuer

Philip Woolfson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages / Reclaiming Note (appeal) From Lord Ordinary's Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence taken on commission but not formally made part of the case can be admitted at the court's discretion after the pursuer's case is closed
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer is entitled to expenses of the reclaiming note

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has discretion to admit evidence taken on commission even if not formally made part of the case before closing, and in the circumstances, it should be admitted.

Court Disposition

judgment for pursuer affirmed; evidence admitted; pursuer entitled to one-half of the expenses of the reclaiming note

Orders

  • Evidence taken on commission admitted
  • Judgment of Lord Ordinary adhered to