Caledonian Railway Co. v. Symington [1912] ScotLR 751 (12 June 1912)

Caledonian Railway Co. v. Symington [1912] ScotLR 751 (12 June 1912)

A party is not entitled to recover secondary evidence (such as copies or excerpts from law agents' books) unless and until reasonable diligence has been exercised to recover the principal documents. The respondent had not attempted to recover the principal documents and thus could not compel production of secondary evidence or law agents' books at this stage.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 751
Parties
Complainer and Reclaimer: Caledonian Railway Company; Respondent: Hugh Symington
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 June 1912
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Diligence to Recover Documents, Primary and Secondary Evidence, Production of Law Agent's Books, Confidentiality of Legal Records
Civil Procedure Evidence Diligence to Recover Documents Primary and Secondary Evidence Production of Law Agent's Books Confidentiality of Legal Records

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Caledonian Railway Company

Complainer and Reclaimer

Hugh Symington

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether secondary evidence (copies, excerpts, etc.) can be recovered before reasonable diligence is used to recover principal documents
  2. 2 Whether law agents' books can be compelled for production when not specified as principal documents
  3. 3 Whether confidentiality of law agents' books is a valid objection at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

A party is not entitled to recover secondary evidence (such as copies or excerpts from law agents' books) unless and until reasonable diligence has been exercised to recover the principal documents. The respondent had not attempted to recover the principal documents and thus could not compel production of secondary evidence or law agents' books at this stage.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Recalled the second head of the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary
  • Refused the second specification (new diligence) hoc statu