A’s trustees, and B, the law-agent of the trust, raised an action against C, who had formerly been in the employment of B’s firm, for delivery of certain documents belonging to the trust, and for damages in respect of C’s having illegally used these documents while in his possession (in a manner specifically set forth) to the pursuers’ prejudice.
The pursuers averred that O had originally obtained possession of some of the documents while employed by the trustees as auditor of a business carried on by them, and of the others while acting as liquidator in the winding up of B’s firm.
After the record was closed, the pursuers, in order to meet objections to the competency of the action, applied for leave to amend the summons by making the conclusion for damages one in favour of the trustees alone, and not of all the pursuers.
Held ( aff. the judgment of the Lord Ordinary) that the summons was relevant, in so far, at least, as its conclusions were founded on a breach, on-the part of the defender, of the contract of employment between him and the trustees; and (2) that the conjunction of the law-agent of the trust, as a pursuer along with the trustees, did not, at least as regards the conclusion for delivery, render the instance invalid; and (3) that in any event the amendment had been properly allowed by the Lord Ordinary.
Opinion by Lord M’Laren, that the Court ought not to interfere with the Lord Ordinary’s discretion as to amendment, even if differing from him as to the expediency of allowing the amendment
Citations:
[1897] SLR 34 – 841
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Scotland
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.612483