Pyper v. Ingram [1901] ScotLR 38_369 (19 February 1901)

Pyper v. Ingram [1901] ScotLR 38_369 (19 February 1901)

A fishery officer who seizes nets in good faith and under orders, pursuant to statutory powers authorising seizure prior to conviction for illegal trawling, is not liable in damages to the owner unless malice or want of probable cause is averred and proved. The absence of such averments or proof entitles the officer to absolvitor, even if the underlying offence is not established.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 38_369
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: William Pyper; Defender/reclaimer: James Ingram
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 February 1901
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved); interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Public Officer Liability, Statutory Powers and Privileges, Illegal Trawling, Seizure of Property Before Conviction, Malice and Want of Probable Cause, Statutory Interpretation
Public Law Tort/delict Fisheries Law Public Officer Liability Statutory Powers and Privileges Illegal Trawling Seizure of Property Before Conviction Malice and Want of Probable Cause +1 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Pyper

Pursuer/respondent

James Ingram

Defender/reclaimer

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seizure of trawl nets by a fishery officer is lawful prior to conviction for illegal trawling under the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts.
  2. 2 Whether a public officer acting under statutory authority and orders from superiors is liable in damages for wrongful seizure absent averment or proof of malice or want of probable cause.

Ratio Decidendi

A fishery officer who seizes nets in good faith and under orders, pursuant to statutory powers authorising seizure prior to conviction for illegal trawling, is not liable in damages to the owner unless malice or want of probable cause is averred and proved. The absence of such averments or proof entitles the officer to absolvitor, even if the underlying offence is not established.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved); interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; action dismissed.

Orders

  • Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.
  • Defender assoilzied from conclusions of the action.