Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The pursuers averred—“(Cond. 4) On 2nd November 1916 the secretary of the Plate Page: 316 ↓
The pursuers pleaded, inter alia —“2. The pursuers not being members of the defenders' Association for the period in question, are entitled to the declarator asked, with expenses. 3. The pursuers not being members of the defenders' Association during the period in question, the defenders have no jurisdiction over them for their actions during said period, and the defenders should accordingly be interdicted from putting the pretended fine of 30th March 1917 into force, with expenses.”
The defenders pleaded, inter alia —“1. The action is incompetent at common law, the defenders being a trade union for the purposes stated in article 1 of the defenders' statement of facts, and is excluded by section 4 of the Trade Union Act 1871, and by section 4 of the Trades Disputes Act 1906, and should be dismissed, with expenses. 5. The fine objected to having been imposed in accordance with the rules of the Association, and for a breach of these rules committed by the pursuers whilst members of the Association, the defenders should be assoilzied, with expenses.”
On 6th November 1917 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Fyfe ) sustained the first plea-in-law for the defenders and dismissed the action.
The pursuers appealed to the Sheriff (A. O. M. Mackenzie ), who on 8th March 1918 refused the appeal.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.