Nobel's Explosives Co., Ltd v. The British Dominions General Insurance Co., Ltd [1918] ScotLR 296 (02 March 1918)

Nobel's Explosives Co., Ltd v. The British Dominions General Insurance Co., Ltd [1918] ScotLR 296 (02 March 1918)

The pursuers' pleadings, taken as a whole, contained a relevant averment that the explosions were caused by the act of an enemy or a person acting on behalf of an enemy, and the case should not be dismissed as irrelevant without inquiry. The Court held that the pursuers are entitled to a proof before answer to establish their claim under the war risk insurance policies.

Citation
[1918] ScotLR 296
Parties
Pursuer: Nobel's Explosives Company, Limited; Defender: The British Dominions General Insurance Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
02 March 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Dismissal at First Instance
Outcome
interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled; proof before answer allowed
Legal Topics
War Risk Insurance, Proof Before Answer, Relevancy of Pleadings, Burden of Proof, Causation
Insurance Law Civil Procedure War Risk Insurance Proof Before Answer Relevancy of Pleadings Burden of Proof Causation

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

Parties

Nobel's Explosives Company, Limited

Pursuer

The British Dominions General Insurance Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) Against Dismissal at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuers' averments are relevant to entitle them to proof that the explosions were caused by an act of war within the meaning of the insurance policies.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' pleadings amount to mere conjecture or constitute a relevant case for inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings, taken as a whole, contained a relevant averment that the explosions were caused by the act of an enemy or a person acting on behalf of an enemy, and the case should not be dismissed as irrelevant without inquiry. The Court held that the pursuers are entitled to a proof before answer to establish their claim under the war risk insurance policies.

Court Disposition

interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary recalled; proof before answer allowed

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dismissing the action.
  • Allow a proof before answer.