Hurst, Nelson, & Co., Ltd v. Spenser Whatley, Ltd [1912] ScotLR 830 (20 June 1912)

Hurst, Nelson, & Co., Ltd v. Spenser Whatley, Ltd [1912] ScotLR 830 (20 June 1912)

Jurisdiction ex reconventione does not exist after final judgment on the merits in the original and cross actions, even if expenses remain to be taxed and approved. The ability to try both claims contemporaneously is essential. Arrestment of evidential productions (planks of wood) is inept to found jurisdiction against a foreign defender.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 830
Parties
Pursuer: Hurst, Nelson, & Company, Limited (in liquidation) and David Smith Macpherson, accountant, Greenock, the liquidator thereof; Defender: Spenser Whatley, Limited, Paddington, London
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 June 1912
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal Before Inner House, Court of Session (seven Judges)
Outcome
action dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Reconvention, Arrestment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem, Finality of Judgment, Forum Non Conveniens
Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Reconvention Arrestment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem Finality of Judgment Forum Non Conveniens

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hurst, Nelson, & Company, Limited (in liquidation) and David Smith Macpherson, accountant, Greenock, the liquidator thereof

Pursuer

Spenser Whatley, Limited, Paddington, London

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal Before Inner House, Court of Session (seven Judges)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish courts had jurisdiction over an English company ex reconventione after final judgment in conjoined actions, where only expenses remained to be taxed and approved.
  2. 2 Whether arrestment of productions (planks of wood) in the hands of the Clerk of Court could found jurisdiction against a foreign defender.

Ratio Decidendi

Jurisdiction ex reconventione does not exist after final judgment on the merits in the original and cross actions, even if expenses remain to be taxed and approved. The ability to try both claims contemporaneously is essential. Arrestment of evidential productions (planks of wood) is inept to found jurisdiction against a foreign defender.

Court Disposition

action dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • sustained defenders' first plea-in-law (no jurisdiction)
  • dismissed action