Mills v. Kelvin & Jambs White, Ltd [1912] ScotLR 725 (28 May 1912)

Mills v. Kelvin & Jambs White, Ltd [1912] ScotLR 725 (28 May 1912)

The Court held that, as the Lord Advocate had not objected to the specification, the pursuer was entitled to recover the documents called for, including those lodged by the defenders with the Procurator-Fiscal or Crown Agent, and that the defenders' precognitions were not protected from recovery in the same way as those of the procurator-fiscal.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 725
Parties
Pursuer: R. K. Mills; Defenders: Kelvin & James White, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 1912
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Appeal on Diligence for Recovery of Documents
Outcome
appeal dismissed; diligence for recovery of documents adhered to
Legal Topics
Recovery of Documents, Diligence, Slander, Malicious Prosecution, Precognitions, Privilege
Civil Procedure Defamation Criminal Law (interface) Recovery of Documents Diligence Slander Malicious Prosecution Precognitions +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. K. Mills

Pursuer

Kelvin & James White, Limited

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Appeal on Diligence for Recovery of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to recover documents lodged by the defenders with the Procurator-Fiscal or Crown Agent relating to criminal charges of theft or fraud against the pursuer.
  2. 2 Whether precognitions taken by the defenders are recoverable by the pursuer.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, as the Lord Advocate had not objected to the specification, the pursuer was entitled to recover the documents called for, including those lodged by the defenders with the Procurator-Fiscal or Crown Agent, and that the defenders' precognitions were not protected from recovery in the same way as those of the procurator-fiscal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; diligence for recovery of documents adhered to

Orders

  • Diligence for recovery of documents called for in the first article as amended granted.