Rothfield v. North British Railway Co. [1920] ScotLR 661 (20 July 1920)

Rothfield v. North British Railway Co. [1920] ScotLR 661 (20 July 1920)

The North British Station Hotel was held to be a common inn, subject to the obligations of innkeepers to accommodate bona fide travellers. The pursuer, as a traveller, was entitled to accommodation unless excluded for good cause. The defenders failed to prove sufficient legal justification for exclusion. However, the declaratory conclusion sought was found too vague and general to be competent. Nominal damages were awarded for the legal wrong suffered.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 661
Parties
Pursuer: Henry Rothfield; Defender: North British Railway Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 July 1920
Procedural Posture
Action of Declarator and Damages / Appeal and Proof After Remittal
Outcome
Declaratory conclusion refused as too vague; nominal damages awarded to pursuer.
Legal Topics
Innkeeper's Obligations, Right to Accommodation, Public Duty of Hotels, Exclusion of Guests, Nominal Damages
Hospitality Law Contract Law Public Law Innkeeper's Obligations Right to Accommodation Public Duty of Hotels Exclusion of Guests Nominal 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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Rothfield

Pursuer

North British Railway Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Declarator and Damages / Appeal and Proof After Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the North British Station Hotel is a common inn subject to the obligations of innkeepers to accommodate travellers.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer, as a bona fide traveller, was unlawfully refused accommodation.
  3. 3 Whether the defenders had legal justification to exclude the pursuer from the hotel.

Ratio Decidendi

The North British Station Hotel was held to be a common inn, subject to the obligations of innkeepers to accommodate bona fide travellers. The pursuer, as a traveller, was entitled to accommodation unless excluded for good cause. The defenders failed to prove sufficient legal justification for exclusion. However, the declaratory conclusion sought was found too vague and general to be competent. Nominal damages were awarded for the legal wrong suffered.

Court Disposition

Declaratory conclusion refused as too vague; nominal damages awarded to pursuer.

Orders

  • Defences repelled as to damages; defenders found liable to pay nominal damages of one guinea to pursuer.