Inglis v. Smith [1916] ScotLR 443 (02 March 1916)

Inglis v. Smith [1916] ScotLR 443 (02 March 1916)

The pursuer's averments are sufficient to potentially elide the operation of the Act of 1579 if established at proof. The Lord Ordinary erred in assuming the pursuer's delay was solely due to her own negligence; the matter requires proof before answer, habili modo, of both parties' averments.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 443
Parties
Pursuer: Jane Inglis; Defender: Alexander Bunten Smith
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 March 1916
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; case remitted for proof before answer, habili modo, of parties' averments.
Legal Topics
Triennial Prescription, Servants' Wages, Delay in Suing, Conduct of Defender, Act 1579 Cap. 83
Employment Law Prescription Law Triennial Prescription Servants' Wages Delay in Suing Conduct of Defender Act 1579 Cap. 83

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Inglis

Pursuer

Alexander Bunten Smith

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the pursuer's delay in suing for wages elide the operation of the Triennial Prescription Act due to the conduct of the defender?
  2. 2 Is proof of the pursuer's claim restricted to writ or oath under Act 1579, cap. 83, or can parole evidence be allowed?

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments are sufficient to potentially elide the operation of the Act of 1579 if established at proof. The Lord Ordinary erred in assuming the pursuer's delay was solely due to her own negligence; the matter requires proof before answer, habili modo, of both parties' averments.

Court Disposition

Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; case remitted for proof before answer, habili modo, of parties' averments.

Orders

  • Recal the interlocutor of Lord Ordinary.
  • Remit to Lord Ordinary to allow parties a proof before answer, habili modo, of their respective averments.