Yallery v. Robert M'Alpine & Sons [1905] ScotLR 42_535 (16 May 1905)

Yallery v. Robert M'Alpine & Sons [1905] ScotLR 42_535 (16 May 1905)

The Lord Ordinary's decision to order proof instead of jury trial, based on doubtful relevancy of averments and difficulty distinguishing relevant from irrelevant averments, constitutes 'special cause' under the Evidence Act 1866, sec. 4. The Court will not interfere with such discretion absent very strong grounds, which were not present here.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_535
Parties
Pursuer/reclaimer: Joseph Vallery; Defenders/respondents: Robert M'Alpine & Sons
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 May 1905
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages for Personal Injuries / Appeal Against Lord Ordinary's Order for Proof Instead of Jury Trial
Outcome
appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's order for proof adhered to
Legal Topics
Jury Trial Vs. Proof, Discretion of Lord Ordinary, Employers' Liability Act 1880, Relevancy of Averments
Civil Procedure Employment Law Personal Injury Jury Trial Vs. Proof Discretion of Lord Ordinary Employers' Liability Act 1880 Relevancy of Averments

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

Parties

Joseph Vallery

Pursuer/reclaimer

Robert M'Alpine & Sons

Defenders/respondents

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages for Personal Injuries / Appeal Against Lord Ordinary's Order for Proof Instead of Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary properly exercised discretion in ordering proof instead of jury trial in a personal injury action under the Employers' Liability Act 1880
  2. 2 Whether doubtful relevancy of averments constitutes 'special cause' under Evidence Act 1866, sec. 4

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Ordinary's decision to order proof instead of jury trial, based on doubtful relevancy of averments and difficulty distinguishing relevant from irrelevant averments, constitutes 'special cause' under the Evidence Act 1866, sec. 4. The Court will not interfere with such discretion absent very strong grounds, which were not present here.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's order for proof adhered to

Orders

  • The Court adhered to the Lord Ordinary's decision to order proof instead of jury trial.