Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1Proof
Subject_2Diligence for Recovery of Documents
Subject_3Public Department
Subject_4Instruction to Servants of Department — Reparation.
Facts:

An Excise officer raised an action of damages against a firm of brewers for injuries caused to him by falling down a hatchway used for the purpose of hoisting yeast in their brewery, while he was engaged in drawing and tasting samples from the liquor in the fermenting vessels. The defenders pleaded contributory negligence, and averred that the pursuer was bound to make, and had in fact made, himself well acquainted with the system of working employed in the defenders' brewery, and in particular with the times at which the yeast was hoisted; further, that he had sent two of the defenders' servants to draw the samples instead of drawing them himself, it being part of these servants' duty to attend to the hatchway when it was open, and that in so doing the pursuer had contravened a rule of the Excise Department.

The defenders having applied for a diligence to recover “the instructions issued by the Inland Revenue to their officers as to their duties ( a) with respect to drawing samples from fermenting vessels in breweries, and ( b) with reference to making themselves acquainted with the system of working adopted in breweries, and in particular with the time at which yeast is placed in the tuns therein,” the Board of Inland Revenue compeared and opposed the application, on the ground that the disclosure sought was contrary to public policy, and would be prejudicial to the public service.

The diligence refused.

Leven v. Young & Company, March 17, 1818, 1 Murray 356, referred to by the defenders. Earl v. Vass, July 17, 1822, 1 S. App. 229, and Arthur v. Lindsay, March 8, 1895, 22 R. 417, referred to by the Inland Revenue.