Hughes v. Morgan [1910] ScotLR 637 (25 May 1910)

Hughes v. Morgan [1910] ScotLR 637 (25 May 1910)

The action was solely for wrongous apprehension, not defamation, so section 8 applies and the pursuer is limited to one-half of his expenses; the judge declined to grant a certificate for increased recovery.

Citation
[1910] ScotLR 637
Parties
Pursuer: Bernard Hughes; Defender: John Morgan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 May 1910
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages / Post Jury Verdict, Expenses Determination
Outcome
verdict applied; pursuer entitled to one-half of expenses
Legal Topics
Wrongous Arrest, Defamation, Expenses, Act of Sederunt 1907 Section 8
Civil Procedure Tort Wrongous Arrest Defamation Expenses Act of Sederunt 1907 Section 8

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

Parties

Bernard Hughes

Pursuer

John Morgan

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages / Post Jury Verdict, Expenses Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action qualifies as defamation for purposes of expenses under Act of Sederunt 1907 section 8
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer is entitled to recover more than one-half of his expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The action was solely for wrongous apprehension, not defamation, so section 8 applies and the pursuer is limited to one-half of his expenses; the judge declined to grant a certificate for increased recovery.

Court Disposition

verdict applied; pursuer entitled to one-half of expenses

Orders

  • Court applied the jury verdict
  • Pursuer entitled to one-half of his expenses