Mitchell and Others v. Sellar [1915] ScotLR 300 (22 January 1915)

Mitchell and Others v. Sellar [1915] ScotLR 300 (22 January 1915)

Exceptional circumstances existed because a pursuer disclaimed the action post-judgment and offered material evidence for the defender, supported by two other witnesses whose relevance could not have been reasonably anticipated. Justice required reopening the proof to admit their testimony.

Citation
[1915] ScotLR 300
Parties
Pursuers and Respondents: John Mitchell, John Falconer, William Falconer, Alexander Stuart, Alexander Murray, Angus Murray; Defender and Appellant: Colin Reid Sellar
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 January 1915
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (damages for Collision) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session; Motion to Reopen Proof After Judgment
Outcome
Motion granted; proof reopened.
Legal Topics
Reopening of Proof, Admissibility of Additional Evidence, Exceptional Circumstances, Witness Credibility
Civil Procedure Maritime Law Reopening of Proof Admissibility of Additional Evidence Exceptional Circumstances Witness Credibility

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mitchell, John Falconer, William Falconer, Alexander Stuart, Alexander Murray, Angus Murray

Pursuers and Respondents

Colin Reid Sellar

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (damages for Collision) / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session; Motion to Reopen Proof After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to reopen proof after judgment to admit new evidence from a pursuer disclaiming the action and supporting the defender
  2. 2 Whether additional witnesses for the defender should be allowed in exceptional circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Exceptional circumstances existed because a pursuer disclaimed the action post-judgment and offered material evidence for the defender, supported by two other witnesses whose relevance could not have been reasonably anticipated. Justice required reopening the proof to admit their testimony.

Court Disposition

Motion granted; proof reopened.

Orders

  • Proof reopened to allow defender to tender William Falconer, William Kewley, and William Hutchison Leask as witnesses.