Mulholland v. Glasgow Harbour Tunnel Co. [1903] ScotLR 40_450 (07 March 1903)

Mulholland v. Glasgow Harbour Tunnel Co. [1903] ScotLR 40_450 (07 March 1903)

The majority held that the pursuer's averments, though not a model of precision, were sufficiently specific to entitle him to inquiry by jury trial, as he described the circumstances and alleged defects in a manner adequate for relevancy at this stage.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 40_450
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: John Mulholland; Defender/respondent: Glasgow Harbour Tunnel Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 March 1903
Procedural Posture
Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court; Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Specification
Outcome
Pursuer's case held relevant; cause appointed to be tried by a jury.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Specification of Pleadings, Public Hoist Safety, Jury Trial Entitlement

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mulholland

Pursuer/appellant

Glasgow Harbour Tunnel Company

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Reparation (personal Injury) / Appeal From Sheriff Court; Interlocutory Decision on Relevancy and Specification

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments of negligence and defect were sufficiently specific to be relevant and entitle him to inquiry by jury trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the pursuer's averments, though not a model of precision, were sufficiently specific to entitle him to inquiry by jury trial, as he described the circumstances and alleged defects in a manner adequate for relevancy at this stage.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's case held relevant; cause appointed to be tried by a jury.

Orders

  • Case to be tried by a jury upon the record as amended.