Murphy v. Clyde Navigation Trustees [1902] ScotLR 39_440 (14 March 1902)

The Court refused the motion for diligence as the pursuer offered no explanation for the delay and the documents could not be used in evidence, only for cross-examination.

Citation: [1902] ScotLR 39_440
Parties: Pursuer: Murphy; Defender: Clyde Navigation Trustees
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 14 March 1902
Procedural Posture: Damages for Personal Injuries / Motion for Diligence to Recover Documents Within Eight Days of Jury Trial
Outcome: motion refused
Legal Topics: Diligence, Recovery of Documents, Jury Trial Procedure, Evidence Admissibility

Civil Procedure Personal Injury Diligence Recovery of Documents Jury Trial Procedure Evidence Admissibility

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Murphy

Pursuer

Clyde Navigation Trustees

Defender

Procedural Posture

Damages for Personal Injuries / Motion for Diligence to Recover Documents Within Eight Days of Jury Trial

Legal Issues

1 Whether diligence to recover documents can be granted within eight days of trial when documents cannot be lodged in evidence in time
2 Whether documents recovered late can be used for cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the motion for diligence as the pursuer offered no explanation for the delay and the documents could not be used in evidence, only for cross-examination.

Court Disposition

motion refused