M'Vicar v. John Robertson & Son [1910] ScotLR 341 (10 February 1910)

M'Vicar v. John Robertson & Son [1910] ScotLR 341 (10 February 1910)

The Sheriff-Substitute's findings in fact in the interlocutor applying the jury's verdict were incompetent; only the facts as found by the jury should be applied. The appeal was otherwise refused, but the Court determined that the injury was one for which compensation would have been due under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 and remitted to the Sheriff to determine the amount.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 341
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Hugh M'Vicar; Defenders/respondents: John Robertson & Son
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 February 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
Appeal refused except as to recall of incompetent findings in fact; case remitted to Sheriff to determine compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906.
Legal Topics
Jury Trial in Sheriff Court, Application of Jury Verdict, Competency of Findings in Fact by Sheriff, Employers' Liability Act 1880, Workmen's Compensation Act 1906
Employment Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Jury Trial in Sheriff Court Application of Jury Verdict Competency of Findings in Fact by Sheriff Employers' Liability Act 1880 Workmen's Compensation Act 1906

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh M'Vicar

Pursuer/appellant

John Robertson & Son

Defenders/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sheriff-Substitute was competent to include findings in fact in the interlocutor applying the jury's verdict
  2. 2 Whether the verdict was contrary to evidence
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff-Substitute's findings in fact in the interlocutor applying the jury's verdict were incompetent; only the facts as found by the jury should be applied. The appeal was otherwise refused, but the Court determined that the injury was one for which compensation would have been due under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 and remitted to the Sheriff to determine the amount.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused except as to recall of incompetent findings in fact; case remitted to Sheriff to determine compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act 1906.

Orders

  • Recall the findings in fact in the interlocutor as incompetent.
  • Refuse the appeal quoad ultra and adhere to the interlocutor.