Macqueen v. Mackie & Co. Distillers Ltd [1920] ScotLR 486 (22 May 1920)

Macqueen v. Mackie & Co. Distillers Ltd [1920] ScotLR 486 (22 May 1920)

The Lord Ordinary has discretion as to the extent of diligence for recovery of documents, even where proof has been allowed on averments remitted to probation. The exercise of this discretion depends on the nature and purpose of the documents sought. In this case, the Lord Ordinary exercised discretion appropriately by allowing some documents and refusing others, and there was no sufficient ground to disturb that decision.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 486
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Haldane Macqueen; Defender: Mackie & Company Distillers Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 May 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Note) Against Refusal of Diligence for Recovery of Documents
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to
Legal Topics
Diligence for Recovery of Documents, Discretion of Judge, Breach of Contract, Damages
Civil Procedure Contract Law Diligence for Recovery of Documents Discretion of Judge Breach of Contract Damages

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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Haldane Macqueen

Pursuer

Mackie & Company Distillers Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Note) Against Refusal of Diligence for Recovery of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to diligence for recovery of documents relating to the size and value of the defender company and the worth of a directorship, in support of averments remitted to probation in a breach of contract action.

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary has discretion as to the extent of diligence for recovery of documents, even where proof has been allowed on averments remitted to probation. The exercise of this discretion depends on the nature and purpose of the documents sought. In this case, the Lord Ordinary exercised discretion appropriately by allowing some documents and refusing others, and there was no sufficient ground to disturb that decision.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to

Orders

  • Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor refusing diligence for certain documents and granting it for others.