BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Trimble v. City of Glasgow Flax Spinning Co. (Ltd) [1867] ScotLR 5_385 (17 March 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/05SLR0385.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 5_385, [1867] SLR 5_385 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 385↓
A party suing for damages for wrongous dismissal from office of managing director of a trading company, concluded for (1) a sum in name of loss, and damages, and solatium; (2) the loss sustained by him in consequence of having to purchase shares of the company's stock as a condition of obtaining the appointment; and (3) the loss sustained by him through having to remove from his former place of residence to the place of business of the company. Held, that he was not entitled to make separate and substantive claims under the 2d and 3d conclusions.
In October 1866, the pursuer, at that time resident in Belfast, entered into an agreement with the defenders, whose place of business is in Glasgow, to serve them as a managing director, for a period of three years, at a salary of £800 per annum, and a commission on profits. The pursuer entered upon the service of the defenders, and continued therein, until October 1867, when he was dismissed from office. He now brought this action, concluding for payment of—“( First), The sum of £2000 sterling, or such sum, more or less, as may be fixed by our said Lords, by way of loss and damage, and as solatium for the defenders' wrongous dismissal of the pursuer from the office of managing director of the said company in or about October 1867; ( Second), of the sum of £300 sterling, being the amount of loss sustained by the pursuer upon forty chares of the defenders' stock, bought by the pursuer as a condition of his appointment to the said office of managing director; or otherwise, of the sum of £400 sterling, being the price paid by the pursuer for the said shares; the pursuer always, simul et semel, assigning the said shares to the defenders at their expense on his receiving payment of said sum; and ( Third), Of the sum of £150 sterling, being loss sustained by the pursuer in removing from Ireland to Glasgow, in order to fill the said office, with interest on said respective sums from the date of citation to follow hereon until paid,” &c.
He proposed an issue, putting the question of engagement and dismissal, and annexing the following schedule of damages;—
Salary, 2 years at £800 per annum,
£1600
0
0
Loss sustained on 40 shares of the defenders' stock by the pursuer as a condition of his appointment to his said office,
400
0
0
Loss sustained by the pursuer in removing from Ireland to Glasgow,
150
0
0
General damage and solatium,
400
0
0
£2550
0
0
The Lord Ordinary (
“The subject of dispute between the parties was the schedule of damages. The defenders maintain that there is no relevant case to recover anything, except the salary for the two years of the period of his engagement subsequent to his dismissal, or such part of that salary as he may be found entitled to. If it were not that the different items in the schedule are separately concluded for in the summons, the Lord Ordinary would not have doubted that the damages might have been laid at a sum larger than the amount of the salary, and without any specification; but as the damages are specifically stated, it may be right to consider at this stage the relevancy of the claim for loss on shares of the defenders' stock purchased as a condition of the pursuer's appointment. The claim is made solely on the ground of the pursuer's dismissal, and not on any allegation that he was fraudulently or improperly induced to purchase the shares. But the loss on the shares must have been caused by their fall in the market, and not by the pursuer's dismissal. On the whole, the Lord Ordinary
Page: 386↓
Scott and Reid for pursuer.
Young and Shand for defenders.
The Court held that the pursuer was not entitled to make any separate or substantive claim under the second and third conclusions of his summons, although a proof of the averments upon which they were founded might have its proper effect with the jury in estimating the amount of general damage, and approved of this issue:—
“It being admitted that, on or about the 15th October 1866, the pursuer entered into an agreement with the defenders to serve them as a managing-director of their company, under the articles of association of the company, for three years from 1st November 1866, at a salary of £800 per annum, and a commission of 10 per cent. on the nett profits of the concern, after deduction of 6 per cent. on the paid-up capital, and a fair allowance for wear and tear, on the same principle as established in the York Street Flax-Spinning Company (Limited).
Whether, on or about 7th October 1867, the pursuer was wrongfully dismissed from his said office of managing-director by the defenders, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?”
Damages laid at £2000.
Solicitors: Agent for Pursuer— J. Walls, S.S.C.
Agent for Defenders— J. N. Forman, W.S.
