Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Ralston v. Dennistoun Sausage Works [1915] ScotLR 162 (07 December 1915)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1915/53SLR0162.html
Cite as: [1915] SLR 162, [1915] ScotLR 162

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 162↓

Court of Session Inner House Second Division.

(Single Bills.)

[Sheriff Court at Glasgow.

Tuesday, December 7. 1915.

53 SLR 162

Ralston

v.

Dennistoun Sausage Works.

Subject_1Expenses
Subject_2Printing
Subject_3Motion to Dispense with Printing.
Facts:

A litigant who is ultimately successful and gets a decree for expenses is not entitled to recover from his opponent the expense of a motion to dispense with printing.

Headnote:

Robert Ralston, auctioneer's porter, Glasgow, pursuer, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow against the Dennistoun Sausage Works, Glasgow, defenders, to recover damages for personal injury. The Sheriff-Substitute ( Craigie) having assoilzied the defenders, and the Sheriff ( Millar) on appeal having adhered, the pursuer appealed to the Court of Session and applied for and obtained leave to dispense with printing. The pursuer was ultimately successful and the Auditor at the taxation of his account allowed certain items in connection with the motion to dispense with printing. The defenders presented a note of objections to the allowance of these items.

At the calling of the case in Single Bills, counsel for the pursuer cited the case of Barron v. Black, 1908, 16 S.L.T. 180.

Judgment:

Lord Justice-Clerk—This is admittedly a point which has not been disposed of before. There is no precedent for taking the course which the Auditor has taken, and in my view we should not make a precedent. If a litigant finds himself in such circumstances as to apply to the Court for the indulgence of being excused from printing, he must make the motion at his own cost and charges and must not debit his opponent with them. Therefore this objection should be sustained.

Lord Dundas—I agree. I think these expenses represent a step which was not truly a necessity but was of the nature of a privilege, and I do not think the other side should bear the expense.

Lord Salvesen—I am of the same opinion.

Lord Guthrie—So am I.

The Court sustained the objection.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Pursuer— Dunbar. Agents—Ross & Ross, S.S.C.

Counsel for the Defenders— Lippe. Agents— Martin, Milligan, & Macdonald, W.S.
1915

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010