Thomson v. Corporation of Glasgow 1962 SC (HL)
Citation:Thomson v. Corporation of Glasgow 1962 SC (HL)
Rule of thumb:Is a Judge required to inform a litigant what laws or fact they need to rely upon to win the case? No, a Judge is expected to have zero knowledge of the law and must have everything explained to them. Litigation is essentially like boxing and a person has to convince the Court that the facts and legal principles should be inserted into a Judgment. A Judge has no professional duty of care to provide any expert insight.
Judgment:
This is a seminal case on the law of procedure. Both litigants are expected to infer their facts and present their legal submissions as powerfully as they can. The Judge then simply has to decide which one they find more persuasive and pretty much just insert them into the Judgment. There are no legal obligations on a Judge to make clever arguments on inference or research laws – any questioning by a Judge over the facts to elucidate or the forwarding of knowledge is done entirely by their own discretion – this is the common law position.
Ratio-decidendi:
'A litigation is in essence a trial of strength between opposing parties conducted under recognised rules, and the prize is the Judge’s decision. We have rejected inquisitorial methods and prefer to regard our Judges as entirely independent. Like referees at boxing contests, they see that the rules are kept and count the points.” Lord Justice Clerk-Thomson
'litigation is in essence a trial of strength between opposing parties under recognised rules ... like ... boxing contests', Lord Thomson
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.