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.
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
Legal Issues
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment