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 £1, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Dean v. Walker [1873] ScotLR 10_535 (26 June 1873)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1873/10SLR0535.html
Cite as: [1873] ScotLR 10_535, [1873] SLR 10_535

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 535

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Thursday, June 26. 1873.

Lord Ormidale, Ordinary.

10 SLR 535

Dean

v.

Walker.

Subject_1Expenses
Subject_2Jury Trial.

Facts:

Circumstances in which a pursuer—who had obtained damages on one issue, but had been unsuccessful on all his own remaining issues and all the counter-issues— held not entitled to expenses.

Headnote:

In this case the pursuer had raised an action of damages against the defender on the ground of defamation—the said defamation consisting of charges of perjury, subornation of perjury, and certain abusive language. The jury affirmed the truth of the charges made against the pursuer, but in respect of the abusive language found him entitled to £300 of damages. The Lord Ordinary found neither party entitled to expenses, on the ground that the pursuer, though successful in obtaining damages, had been unsuccessful on all the counter-issues, and all but one of his own issues.

The pursuer reclaimed.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—I do not think there is any fixed rule which forms a safe guide in such cases as this. The so-called rule established by the decisions in the cases of Stoppel and Smellie's Trustees goes no further than this, that when the Court is of opinion that the expenses should be divided, the mode of effecting that is not to be a mere haphazard division, but that they will ascertain through the Auditor what amount of expense is applicable to each branch of the case; and it seems to me that that is the only course we could take, namely, to remit to the Auditor to report. But we must not do that unless we are prepared to carry out his report. Now, I cannot say that I am prepared to do so, because it is quite possible that a very small part of the expense is attributable to the pursuer. The case is a peculiar one, and much difficulty arises from the fact that it is not easy to understand on what principle the jury found the verdict which they did for the pursuer. He charges against the defender no more than he admitted himself in the witness box, so that the verdict is really not intelligible, but still we must, deal with it as we find it; and taking it as it stands I cannot say that the judgment of the Lord Ordinary does any injustice to either party, and I am besides disposed to pay great deference to the opinion of the Judge who presided at the trial.

The other Judges concurred.

Counsel:

Counsel for Pursuer— Fraser, Macdonald, and Robertson. Agents— Philip, Laing, & Munro, W.S.

Counsel for Defender— Millar, Q.C., Trayner, and J. A. Reid. Agent— W. G. Roy, S.S.C.

1873


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1873/10SLR0535.html