Ridley v. Kimball & Morton, Ltd [1905] ScotLR 42_559 (23 May 1905)

Ridley v. Kimball & Morton, Ltd [1905] ScotLR 42_559 (23 May 1905)

The Court refused to modify expenses because the case was appropriate for jury trial, the pursuer exercised a statutory right, and there was no sufficient ground to depart from the ordinary rule that a successful pursuer is entitled to expenses.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_559
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: William Ridley; Defenders and Respondents: Kimball & Morton, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 May 1905
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Action / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division, on Expenses After Jury Trial
Outcome
Defenders' motion for modification of expenses refused; verdict applied with expenses to the pursuer.
Legal Topics
Expenses, Modification of Expenses, Jury Trial, Employers' Liability Act 1880, Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1877, Court of Session Act 1868
Civil Procedure Employment Law Personal Injury Expenses Modification of Expenses Jury Trial Employers' Liability Act 1880 Sheriff Courts (scotland) Act 1877 +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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Ridley

Pursuer and Appellant

Kimball & Morton, Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Action / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, First Division, on Expenses After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expenses awarded to the successful pursuer should be modified due to the small amount of damages awarded by the jury
  2. 2 Whether the case was appropriate for jury trial despite the low damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to modify expenses because the case was appropriate for jury trial, the pursuer exercised a statutory right, and there was no sufficient ground to depart from the ordinary rule that a successful pursuer is entitled to expenses.

Court Disposition

Defenders' motion for modification of expenses refused; verdict applied with expenses to the pursuer.

Orders

  • Verdict for pursuer applied.
  • Pursuer awarded expenses; no modification.