Pollock v. Mair [1901] ScotLR 38_250 (10 January 1901)
The claim is essentially for loss of wages due to wrongful dismissal, with damages to be calculated based on wages lost. The evidence is local, and the Sheriff Court is the more appropriate and less expensive tribunal for ascertaining the facts. The appeal for jury trial is refused, and the case is remitted for proof in the Sheriff Court.
- Citation
- [1901] ScotLR 38_250
- Parties
- Pursuer/appellant: James Pollock; Defender/respondent: John Mair
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 10 January 1901
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal for Jury Trial in Action for Damages for Wrongful Dismissal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House First Division
- Outcome
- appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Wrongful Dismissal, Damages, Jury Trial, Remit to Sheriff Court
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
James Pollock
Pursuer/appellant
John Mair
Defender/respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal for Jury Trial in Action for Damages for Wrongful Dismissal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House First Division
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the case should be tried by jury or remitted for proof in the Sheriff Court
- 2 Whether the damages claimed are suitable for jury trial
Ratio Decidendi
The claim is essentially for loss of wages due to wrongful dismissal, with damages to be calculated based on wages lost. The evidence is local, and the Sheriff Court is the more appropriate and less expensive tribunal for ascertaining the facts. The appeal for jury trial is refused, and the case is remitted for proof in the Sheriff Court.
Court Disposition
appeal refused
Orders
- case remitted to Sheriff-Substitute to proceed in terms of interlocutor of 20th November
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment