Kemp v. Glasgow Corporation [1918] ScotLR 52 (16 November 1918)

Kemp v. Glasgow Corporation [1918] ScotLR 52 (16 November 1918)

The pursuer's averments did not disclose any specific or relevant objection to the accounts as required by section 14 of the Glasgow Corporation Act 1909. Payments for election expenses of annexationist candidates, made in the context of promoting the Glasgow Boundaries Act 1912, were not illegal per se. The Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 did not entitle the defenders to expenses as between agent and client because the 1909 Act applied only to Scotland and contained its own procedural limitations.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 52
Parties
Pursuer: John Kemp junior; Defenders: Corporation of the City and Royal Burgh of Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 November 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Appeal refused; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Common Good Funds, Audit of Public Accounts, Statutory Interpretation, Public Authority Expenses, Election Expenses, Burgh Accounts
Local Government Law Public Finance Law Administrative Law Common Good Funds Audit of Public Accounts Statutory Interpretation Public Authority Expenses Election Expenses +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kemp junior

Pursuer

Corporation of the City and Royal Burgh of Glasgow

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments from the Common Good fund for election expenses of annexationist candidates were illegal under the Glasgow Corporation Act 1909 and Glasgow Boundaries Act 1912.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's objections to the accounts were sufficiently specific under section 14 of the 1909 Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 entitled the defenders to expenses as between agent and client.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments did not disclose any specific or relevant objection to the accounts as required by section 14 of the Glasgow Corporation Act 1909. Payments for election expenses of annexationist candidates, made in the context of promoting the Glasgow Boundaries Act 1912, were not illegal per se. The Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 did not entitle the defenders to expenses as between agent and client because the 1909 Act applied only to Scotland and contained its own procedural limitations.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Defenders found entitled to expenses, taxed as between party and party, not as between agent and client.