BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Cameron and Co. v. Gibb [1867] ScotLR 3_282_1 (2 March 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/03SLR0282_1.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 3_282_1, [1867] SLR 3_282_1 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 282↓
Circumstances in which a servant found liable in £100 damages to his employers for breach of contract of service.
This was an advocation from Glasgow. The pursuers, who are stationers in Glasgow, sued the defender for £300 damages for breach of contract, he having in September 1864 left their service without their consent, and having before throwing up his engagement clandestinely carried on business on his own account. The Sheriff-Substitute (Glassford Bell) in his interlocutor “finds that the pursuers have proved both by the defender's own admissions, when examined as a witness in causa, and by other evidence, that said defender broke his said engagement at the time set forth; and the defender has failed to prove that there was any sufficient ground to justify his so doing, and in particular, has failed to prove either that the pursuers themselves wished to discontinue his services, or that they, on their part, committed any breach of the terms of the engagement: Finds that the pursuers have also proved out of the defender's own mouth that he transacted business with at least thirty customers of his own between January and September 1863, when in the pursuers' employment, and the defender has failed to prove that he did this with the pursuers' consent or acquiescence; it being, on the contrary, proved that the pursuers expressly refused their consent when it was asked, and were ignorant until after the defender left them, that he was so carrying on any private business in breach of his engagement: Finds that immediately after breaking his engagement with the pursuers, the defender assumed a partner and commenced a business, under the firm of James Gibb & Company, of precisely the same character as that carried on by the pursuers, and for nearly fifteen months of the time he ought to have been in the pursuers' employment entered into an active competition with them in nearly all the districts in England and Scotland in which they had customers, whereby the pursuers' emoluments were seriously affected.” He therefore found damages due, and assessed them at £150. The Sheriff (Alison) altered, but only to the effect of reducing the damages to £100.
Both parties advocated.
Fraser and R. V. Campbell were heard for the pursuers.
Mackenzie and Cattanach for the defenders.
The Court adhered to Sheriff Alison's judgment.
At advising,
Page: 283↓
The other Judges concurred.
The pursuers were found entitled to full expenses in the inferior Court, and four-fifths of their expenses in this Court.
Agents for Pursuers— MacGregor & Barclay, S.S.C.
Agent for Defender— Alexander Wylie, W.S.