Mitchell v. J. & W. Stewart [1907] ScotLR 549 (15 March 1907)

Mitchell v. J. & W. Stewart [1907] ScotLR 549 (15 March 1907)

The Court held that the pursuer had relevantly averred the existence of a place of business within the sheriffdom, which, at common law, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction for actions arising out of business conducted there, regardless of the defenders' foreign domicile. The statutory provisions did not exclude this common law ground of jurisdiction. As the facts were disputed, proof on the question of jurisdiction was allowed.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 549
Parties
Pursuer: James Mitchell; Defender: J. & W. Stewart
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 March 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/personal Injury) / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Motion) on Jurisdiction
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service of Process, Employers' Liability, Foreign Defendants, Sheriff Court Competence
Civil Procedure Employment Law Personal Injury Jurisdiction Service of Process Employers' Liability Foreign Defendants Sheriff Court Competence

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Mitchell

Pursuer

J. & W. Stewart

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/personal Injury) / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Motion) on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a foreign firm carrying out a contract in Scotland and maintaining an office there is subject to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Sheriff Court for actions arising out of business conducted there
  2. 2 Whether service by post at such an office constitutes valid personal service for jurisdictional purposes under the Employers' Liability Act 1880 and relevant Scottish statutes

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the pursuer had relevantly averred the existence of a place of business within the sheriffdom, which, at common law, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction for actions arising out of business conducted there, regardless of the defenders' foreign domicile. The statutory provisions did not exclude this common law ground of jurisdiction. As the facts were disputed, proof on the question of jurisdiction was allowed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to

Orders

  • Proof allowed on the question of jurisdiction
  • Leave to reclaim granted (already exercised)