Hughes v. Robertson [1912] ScotLR 268 (11 December 1912)

Hughes v. Robertson [1912] ScotLR 268 (11 December 1912)

The pleadings improperly combined claims for two separate wrongs, one affecting only some pursuers, and the pursuers refused to amend the record to confine the case to the competent claim. As the pleadings would likely mislead a jury and risk miscarriage of justice, the case should proceed to proof before a judge rather than jury trial.

Citation
[1912] ScotLR 268
Parties
Pursuers: Mrs Agnes Cunningham or Hughes and others; Defender: R.C. Robertson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 December 1912
Procedural Posture
Civil (reparation/damages) / Appeal Against Interlocutors Approving Jury Trial Issue; Decision on Procedural Course
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; jury trial disallowed; proof before judge ordered.
Legal Topics
Reparation for Wrongful Post Mortem, Jury Trial Vs Proof Before Judge, Pleading of Multiple Wrongs, Workmen's Compensation
Civil Procedure Tort/delict Medical Law Reparation for Wrongful Post Mortem Jury Trial Vs Proof Before Judge Pleading of Multiple Wrongs Workmen's Compensation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Agnes Cunningham or Hughes and others

Pursuers

R.C. Robertson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (reparation/damages) / Appeal Against Interlocutors Approving Jury Trial Issue; Decision on Procedural Course

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action improperly combines claims for two separate wrongs in one summons
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings as framed are suitable for jury trial or likely to mislead the jury
  3. 3 Whether the case should proceed to jury trial or proof before a judge

Ratio Decidendi

The pleadings improperly combined claims for two separate wrongs, one affecting only some pursuers, and the pursuers refused to amend the record to confine the case to the competent claim. As the pleadings would likely mislead a jury and risk miscarriage of justice, the case should proceed to proof before a judge rather than jury trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; jury trial disallowed; proof before judge ordered.

Orders

  • Two interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary dated 27th November 1912 recalled except as to amendment of the record.
  • Proposed jury issue disallowed.