Fergusson v. Ferguson [1900] ScotLR 38_100 (20 November 1900)

Fergusson v. Ferguson [1900] ScotLR 38_100 (20 November 1900)

The pursuer failed to prove a substantial risk or injury to her own property and thus was not entitled to interdict on that ground. However, the use of the rifle range constituted a nuisance and danger to the public using the foreshore and public road, and in the absence of statutory authority restricting public rights, the pursuer as a member of the public was entitled to interdict against the use of the ranges in the manner practised.

Citation
[1900] ScotLR 38_100
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Mary Kirkland Galloway or Fergusson; Defenders: Commanding officers of Ayrshire Yeomanry Cavalry, 2nd and 3rd Batteries of the First Ayr and Galloway Artillery Volunteers, A and B Companies of the Second Volunteer Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 November 1900
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff and Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
Interdict granted in part; appeal dismissed; expenses awarded to pursuer.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Public Rights of Way, Military Use of Land, Interdict/injunction
Tort Public Law Military Law Nuisance Public Rights of Way Military Use of Land Interdict/injunction

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

Parties

Mrs Mary Kirkland Galloway or Fergusson

Pursuer

Commanding officers of Ayrshire Yeomanry Cavalry, 2nd and 3rd Batteries of the First Ayr and Galloway Artillery Volunteers, A and B Companies of the Second Volunteer Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Sheriff and Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of the rifle range constituted a nuisance to the pursuer's property
  2. 2 Whether the use of the rifle range interfered with public rights on the foreshore and public road
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was entitled to interdict as a private individual or only as a member of the public

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove a substantial risk or injury to her own property and thus was not entitled to interdict on that ground. However, the use of the rifle range constituted a nuisance and danger to the public using the foreshore and public road, and in the absence of statutory authority restricting public rights, the pursuer as a member of the public was entitled to interdict against the use of the ranges in the manner practised.

Court Disposition

Interdict granted in part; appeal dismissed; expenses awarded to pursuer.

Orders

  • Interdict prohibiting defenders from shooting from the firing points and over the ranges in the manner hitherto practised.
  • Pursuer awarded expenses in this and the Inferior Court, remit to Auditor to tax and report.