Taylor v. Ormond & Co. [1906] ScotLR 43_652 (28 February 1906)

Taylor v. Ormond & Co. [1906] ScotLR 43_652 (28 February 1906)

The defence of previous over-payments was a counter claim for which statutory notice was required; failure to give such notice was a deviation from statutory procedure that prevented substantial justice, warranting the appeal to be sustained.

Citation
[1906] ScotLR 43_652
Parties
Appellant: Taylor; Respondent: Ormond & Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 February 1906
Procedural Posture
Small Debt Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal sustained
Legal Topics
Small Debt Procedure, Counterclaim Notice Requirements, Wages, Deviation From Statutory Procedure
Civil Procedure Employment Law Small Debt Procedure Counterclaim Notice Requirements Wages Deviation From Statutory Procedure

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

Parties

Taylor

Appellant

Ormond & Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Small Debt Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of over-payments constituted a counter claim requiring notice under section 11 of the Small Debt (Scotland) Act 1837
  2. 2 Whether admitting evidence of over-payments without notice was a deviation from statutory procedure preventing substantial justice

Ratio Decidendi

The defence of previous over-payments was a counter claim for which statutory notice was required; failure to give such notice was a deviation from statutory procedure that prevented substantial justice, warranting the appeal to be sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained

Orders

  • Decree of the Sheriff-Substitute recalled
  • Case remitted to Sheriff-Substitute to decern in terms of the summons