Garrioch v. Glass [1911] ScotLR 347 (19 January 1911)

The pursuer was responsible for the unnecessary proof, having been unsuccessful on the bonus claim, and the defender had tendered the principal sum. The omission of interest in the tender was minor and did not justify the pursuer's conduct. Therefore, the pursuer should bear the expenses of the proof from the date of the interlocutor allowing proof.

Citation: [1911] ScotLR 347
Parties: Pursuer: Alexander Garrioch; Defender: J. M. Glass
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 19 January 1911
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal on Expenses From Sheriff Court to Court of Session
Outcome: partly allowed
Legal Topics: Expenses, Tender, Proof, Appeal on Expenses

Civil Procedure Expenses Tender Proof Appeal on Expenses

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Alexander Garrioch

Pursuer

J. M. Glass

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal on Expenses From Sheriff Court to Court of Session

Legal Issues

1 Whether the pursuer or defender should bear the expenses of proof after a partial tender and unsuccessful claim for bonuses
2 Competency of appeal on expenses only

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

partly allowed

Orders

Pursuer entitled to expenses up to and including 22nd October 1909
Defender entitled to expenses in Sheriff Court and Court of Session from 22nd October 1909 onwards, including counsel fees