(Inner House) The pursuer sought recovery of its losses from two defenders jointly and severally as a result of an employee leaving without giving sufficient notice. The pursuer claimed the employee left as the result of the second defender, Abderdeen Steam Laundry Company, having induced him to break his employment agreement.
Held: Although the grounds pleaded against each of the two defenders were different, the action was competent in that both defenders were alleged to have contributed to the one wrong of which the pursuer had complained.
Lord Adam stated: ‘No doubt the ground of action against each defender is different — that against Innes being breach of contract, and that against the Aberdeen Steam Laundry Company the doing of a wrongous and illegal act — but they both contributed to produce the one wrong of which the pursuers complain, and therefore I think that they are conjunctly and severally liable in the consequences’.
Judges:
Lord Adam
Citations:
[1898] ScotCS CSIH – 2, (1898) 6 SLT 192, (1898) 1 F 45
Links:
Scotland, Litigation Practice
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279248