Clippens Oil Co., Ltd v. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees [1907] UKHL 669 (11 June 1907)

Clippens Oil Co., Ltd v. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees [1907] UKHL 669 (11 June 1907)

The House of Lords held that the damages awarded by the First Division for wrongous interdict should not be disturbed, as the assessment was a matter of fact for the lower courts and no wrong principle of law was applied. The interdict subsisted until final disposal, justifying the increased damages. The wrongdoer is liable for the actual loss caused, but not for speculative or unattainable opportunities.

Citation
[1907] UKHL 669
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Clippens Oil Company, Limited; Defender/respondent: Edinburgh and District Water Trustees
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 June 1907
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before House of Lords
Outcome
appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Wrongous Interdict, Damages Assessment, Interim Interdict, Reparation, Appeal Review, Compensatory Damages
Tort Civil Procedure Scots Law Wrongous Interdict Damages Assessment Interim Interdict Reparation Appeal Review +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clippens Oil Company, Limited

Pursuer/appellant

Edinburgh and District Water Trustees

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before House of Lords

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the damages awarded for wrongous interdict were properly assessed
  2. 2 Whether the interdict subsisted until final disposal and thus increased damages
  3. 3 Whether the House of Lords should interfere with the factual assessment of damages by lower courts

Ratio Decidendi

The House of Lords held that the damages awarded by the First Division for wrongous interdict should not be disturbed, as the assessment was a matter of fact for the lower courts and no wrong principle of law was applied. The interdict subsisted until final disposal, justifying the increased damages. The wrongdoer is liable for the actual loss caused, but not for speculative or unattainable opportunities.

Court Disposition

appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Both the appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.
  • Costs awarded against both appellants.