G1 Venues Ltd, Re Order Under Schedule 1 To The Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010: SCS 27 Dec 2013
[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 202 Bailii Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 Scotland Arbitration Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520918
Search Results for: Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010
Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland): SC 24 Apr 2013
The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had been obtained and incorporated in the plan. She had objected that St Andrews had reached te limit of … Continue reading Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland): SC 24 Apr 2013
Acts
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the exemption continued until the papers were destroyed, or for 20 years under the 1958 Act. Held: The … Continue reading Kennedy v The Charity Commission: SC 26 Mar 2014
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind: HL 7 Feb 1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they were incompatible with the ECHR, and also on the ground that they were disproportionate in going beyond the established … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind: HL 7 Feb 1991
Edwards v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Dec 1992
The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the defence. One of the police witnesses said that no fingerprints were found … Continue reading Edwards v The United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Dec 1992
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc: CA 2 Feb 2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. Held: The view that appeals were restricted … Continue reading E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc: CA 2 Feb 2004
AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011
Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance: HL 21 May 1997
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th January 1995, although the … Continue reading Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance: HL 21 May 1997
Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others: CA 22 Jun 2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or falsified documentation in discovery. The forgery was admitted. Held: If a party to litigation behaved … Continue reading Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others: CA 22 Jun 2000
BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another: SC 20 Jun 2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life. Held: The appeals against extradition failed. The appeal was competent in that proper human rights issues arose. The allegations were of … Continue reading BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another: SC 20 Jun 2012
Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc: HL 21 Oct 2004
The claims arose in connection with the validity and alleged infringement of a European Patent on erythropoietin (‘EPO’). Held: ‘Construction is objective in the sense that it is concerned with what a reasonable person to whom the utterance was addressed would have understood the author to be using the words to mean. Notice, however, that … Continue reading Kirin-Amgen Inc and others v Hoechst Marion Roussel Limited and others etc: HL 21 Oct 2004
Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd: HL 10 Jul 1980
The plaintiff, on arriving at the airport found that his luggage had been lost. The defendant denied liability saying he had not notified his claim within the requisite period.
Held: Elementary justice requires that the rules by which the . .
Deweer v Belgium: ECHR 27 Feb 1980
The applicant, a Belgian butcher, paid a fine by way of settlement in the face of an order for the closure of his shop until judgment was given in an intended criminal prosecution or until such fine was paid.
Held: Since the payment was made . .
Inco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others: HL 10 Mar 2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .
