Murphy v. Blair & White [1905] ScotLR 42_655 (28 June 1905)

Murphy v. Blair & White [1905] ScotLR 42_655 (28 June 1905)

The appeal must be dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of lodging a proper minute specifying the question(s) of law and paying the required deposit as stipulated by the Act of Sederunt 3 June 1898, sec. 9(a).

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_655
Parties
Appellant: James Murphy; Respondent: Blair & White
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 1905
Procedural Posture
Appeal (stated Case) Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Hearing Before Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Appeal Procedure, Compliance With Procedural Regulations
Civil Procedure Labour Law Workmen's Compensation Appeal Procedure Compliance With Procedural Regulations

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Murphy

Appellant

Blair & White

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (stated Case) Under Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 / Hearing Before Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with procedural requirements under Act of Sederunt 3 June 1898, sec. 9(a), invalidates an application for a stated case under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal must be dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of lodging a proper minute specifying the question(s) of law and paying the required deposit as stipulated by the Act of Sederunt 3 June 1898, sec. 9(a).

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • case dismissed for failure to comply with sec. 9(a) of the Act of Sederunt 3 June 1898
  • appellant found liable in expenses