Robertson v. Henderson & Sons, Ltd [1905] ScotLR 42_632_1 (16 June 1905)

Robertson v. Henderson & Sons, Ltd [1905] ScotLR 42_632_1 (16 June 1905)

The Court held that the main consideration for the agreement was not merely the sum paid but the assurance of employment, which was honoured for three years. The arrangement was reasonable and sensible in the circumstances, made with the advice of the minor's curator and legal adviser. The consideration was not immoderately disproportionate to what might have been obtained under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, enorm lesion was not proved, and the agreement was not reducible.

Citation
[1905] ScotLR 42_632_1
Parties
Pursuer: James Robertson; Defender: S. Henderson & Sons, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 June 1905
Procedural Posture
Action of Reduction / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; defenders assoilzied (absolved from liability)
Legal Topics
Minority and Lesion, Workmen's Compensation, Discharge of Claims, Enorm Lesion, Reduction of Contract, Settlement Agreements
Contract Law Employment Law Personal Injury Scots Law Minority and Lesion Workmen's Compensation Discharge of Claims Enorm Lesion +2 more

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

Parties

James Robertson

Pursuer

S. Henderson & Sons, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Reduction / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the discharge and settlement agreement entered into by a minor, with consent of his curator, in exchange for compensation and an assurance of employment, was to his 'enorm lesion' and thus reducible under Scots law.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the main consideration for the agreement was not merely the sum paid but the assurance of employment, which was honoured for three years. The arrangement was reasonable and sensible in the circumstances, made with the advice of the minor's curator and legal adviser. The consideration was not immoderately disproportionate to what might have been obtained under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, enorm lesion was not proved, and the agreement was not reducible.

Court Disposition

Lord Ordinary's interlocutor recalled; defenders assoilzied (absolved from liability)

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor reducing the agreement and discharge
  • Decree of absolvitor (assoilzied) in favour of defenders