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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Finlay v. Glasgow Corporation [1915] ScotLR 446 (11 March 1915) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1915/52SLR0446.html Cite as: [1915] SLR 446, [1915] ScotLR 446 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 446↓
(Single Bills.)
In an action of damages against a tramway company, originating out of an accident, a diligence for the recovery of “all reports, memoranda, or other written communications made at or about the time of the accident to the defenders or anyone on their behalf by any inspector, car driver, car conductor, pointsman, or other employee of the defenders present at the time of the accident relative to the matter mentioned on record,” granted after consultation with the Second Division, subject, however, to the understanding that communications between the defenders and their employees were restricted to those prior to its becoming apparent that there was going to be a litigation.
The Admiralty v. Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Company, Limited, 1909 S.C. 335, 46 S.L.R. 254, followed.
Page: 447↓
Scott and Others v. Portsoy Harbour Trustees, (1900) 8 S.L.T. 38, approved.
Andrew Finlay, engineman, 156 Dumbarton Road, Partick, Glasgow, as tutor and administrator-in-law of his pupil child Louise Margaret Finlay, pursuer, brought an action against the Corporation of the City of Glasgow, defenders, for damages in respect of injuries sustained by the child through being struck and knocked down by a tramway car belonging to the defenders.
In Single Bills in the First Division the pursuer moved for a diligence for the recovery of certain documents, including, after amendment at the bar, those specified ( supra) in the rubric.
Counsel for the pursuer argued that any document which helped to elucidate what was passing in the mind of the tramway driver or the general circumstances of the accident could be referred to, and quoted the following cases:— Admiralty v. Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Company, Limited, 1909 S.C. 335, Lord M'Laren at 341, Lord Kinnear at 342, 46 S.L.R. 254; Muir v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited, 1909 S.C. 244, 46 S.L.R. 248; Stuart v. Great North of Scotland Railway Company, July 9, 1896, 23 R. 1005, 33 S.L.R. 730; Tannett, Walker, & Company v. Hannay & Sons, July 18, 1873, 11 Macph. 931, 10 S.L.R. 642; Irvine v. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company, 1913, 2 S.L.T. 452.
Argued for the defenders—There was no instance of a diligence of this nature being granted except in shipping cases which were of an exceptional character. The diligence would break the rule that confidential documents were privileged. Moreover the present case was covered by authority— Stuart v. Great North of Scotland Railway Company ( cit. sup.); Muir v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Company, Limited ( cit. sup.).
The Court (the
Counsel for the Pursuer— Macquisten— Reid. Agent— James Scott, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defenders— Russell. Agents— St Clair Swanson & Manson, W.S.
