Category: Scotland

Middleton v Dundee City Council: SIC 8 Jan 2008

SIC Request for a copy of the investigation report regarding the failure of a glass pane at the Wellgate Library, Dundee – report withheld under 35(1)(g) (read in conjunction with 35(2)(e) and 35(2)(i)) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – the Commissioner ordered the Council to disclose the report

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 001 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland)
Act 2002 35

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434104

David Walker v Falkirk Council: SIC 18 Dec 2009

Council procedures – Mr David Walker asked Falkirk Council (the Council) to supply any recorded information relating to two questions arising from previous correspondence with the Council. The Council initially failed to reply, and Mr Walker asked for a review of this decision. The Council then wrote to advise Mr Walker that information relating to his first request was not held. It provided some information associated with, but not covered by, the terms of his second request. Mr Walker remained dissatisfied and applied for a decision from the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council did not hold any recorded information covered by either of Mr Walker’s requests. The Commissioner found that the Council had not given Mr Walker notice that some of the information requested was not held, and in this respect had failed to comply with section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The Commissioner also found that the Council had failed to comply with the statutory timescale for responding to the request. He did not require the Council to take any action in respect of these failures.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 147 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 17(1)

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434091

Conor McNally v City Building (Glasgow) Llp: SIC 14 Sep 2009

Mr McNally requested from City Building (Glasgow) LLP (CBG) information relating to improvement works carried out at a specified address. CBG responded by providing some information. However, CBG advised Mr McNally that the remainder of the information he had asked for was either not held by it, or was considered exempt in terms of section 33(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Mr McNally remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that CBG had partially failed to deal with Mr McNally’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA by failing to advise him which of the information he had requested it did not hold and by failing to identify all of the information falling within the scope of his request. However, the Commissioner found that CBG had correctly applied the exemption in section 33(1)(b) in relation to the pricing information. The Commissioner did not require CBG to take any action in relation to the breaches identified in this decision.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 110 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434054

Longden v Scottish Ministers: SIC 5 Aug 2009

SIC Failure to respond to a request within the required timescale – This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to information request made by Liz Longden.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 097 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434043

Crosbie and Scottish Public Services Ombudsman: SIC 8 Jul 2009

SIC Failure to respond to request and request for review – This decision considers whether the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request and request for review made by Mr Alan Crosbie

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 076 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434024

X and Scottish Court Service: SIC 12 Jan 2009

Solemn criminal appeals – Mr X requested from the Scottish Court Service (the SCS) information relating to solemn criminal appeals. The SCS responded by confirming that the information requested by Mr X was not held. Following a review, as a result of which the SCS retracted its assertion that the information was not held, Mr X was provided with the information the SCS believed at the time fell within the scope of his request. Mr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Commissioner was notified that on further consideration the SCS now took the view that the information provided to Mr X represented only part of the request. However, the SCS also submitted, with supporting calculations, that the cost of full compliance would exceed andpound;600. As a result of the investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the cost of compliance in this case would exceed andpound;600 and consequently that (by virtue of section 12(1) of FOISA) the SCS was not obliged to comply with the request. He also found, however, that the SCS had failed to provide Mr X with adequate advice and assistance in responding to his request.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 002 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433954

R and Orkney Islands Council: SIC 10 Sep 2009

Mr R requested from Orkney Islands Council (the Council) information relating to Equal Opportunities. He also asked for other information relating to him which does not form part of this Decision. The Council initially failed to respond but later responded to a request for review. It also supplied Mr R with its equal opportunity policy together with statistical information which fell within the scope of his request and an explanation of information held. Following the review, Mr R remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council complied with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in that it was correct to inform Mr R that it did not hold an Equal Opportunities Charter, in keeping with section 17 of FOISA.
However, the Commissioner also found that the Council failed to comply with Part 1 of FOISA, in particular by failing to provide reasonable advice and assistance to Mr R regarding clarification of the request and in line with its duty under section 15 of FOISA. It also failed to comply with Part 1 of FOISA by not responding within the statutory timescales in terms of section 10(1) of FOISA and by failing to carry out a review in line with sections 21(4) and (5) of FOISA within the timescales laid down by section 21(1) of FOISA. He does not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 107 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434058

Croisdain Mackenzie and Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: SIC 2 Apr 2009

SIC Mr Croisdain MacKenzie (Mr MacKenzie) requested from Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council) a specified Opinion of Senior Counsel and related information. The Council provided some information, but withheld the Opinion and a summary of it in terms of section 36(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), on the basis that these documents were information in respect of which a claim of confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings. Following a review, Mr MacKenzie remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr MacKenzie’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He found that the Council had correctly applied the exemption in section 36(1) and that the public interest in disclosing of the information was outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
However, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to respond to Mr MacKenzie’s request for review within the timescale specified in section 21(1) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action in relation to this breach in response to this decision.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 040 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433993

Carlin and Renfrewshire Council: SIC 12 Jan 2009

Mr Carlin requested from Renfrewshire Council (the Council) all documents relating to a specified investigation of a Councillor. The Council responded by withholding the information under sections 34(1) and 38 of FOISA. Following a review, in which the Council upheld its decision to withhold the information, Mr Carlin remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Carlin’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He found that the information was properly withheld under section 34(1)(b) of FOISA, on the basis that it was information which had been held by the Council for the purposes of carrying out a relevant investigation and the public interest lay in withholding this information.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 003 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433952

Gowans and Falkirk Council: SIC 12 Jan 2009

SIC Mr John R Gowans requested all the information Falkirk Council (the Council) held regarding the death of his son, Craig Gowans. The Council relied upon sections 34(1)(a), 34(1)(b), 34(2)(b) and 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) to withhold all of the requested information. Following a review, in which the Council upheld its previous decision, Mr Gowans remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Gowans’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the information under section 34(1)(a) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 004 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433951

Angove v Scottish Ministers: SIC 19 Oct 2010

SIC Failure to respond to request and request for review – This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to the information request made by Mr Angove.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 180 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433904

L and Lothian Health Board: SIC 12 Oct 2010

Statistical information on complications and injuries associated with forceps delivery – Mrs L requested from Lothian Health Board (NHS Lothian) statistical evidence on specific complications and injuries associated with forceps delivery to newborns and mothers at the Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health (SCRH). NHS Lothian responded by explaining that the information requested was not recorded outwith individual medical files, that it could not be disclosed without breaching the data protection principles and that consequently it was exempt under section 38 of FOISA. Additionally, NHS Lothian claimed that to provide the information would involve a level of work which would exceed the andpound;600 limit set for the purposes of section 12(1) of FOISA. Following a review, Mrs L remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that NHS Lothian had dealt with Mrs L’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, as the Commissioner accepted that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the specified cost limit and that NHS Lothian was therefore not obliged to comply with the request.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 178 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433906

N and South Lanarkshire Council: SIC 14 Jun 2010

Whether request vexatious – Mr N requested from South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) copies of changes to planning legislation and the Council’s guiding policy. The Council responded that it regarded the request as vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA. Following a review, Mr N remained dissatisfied and
applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr N’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, as it was justified in treating Mr N’s request as vexatious and therefore was not obliged to comply with the request.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 092 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433824

Quinn v Dumfries and Galloway Council: SIC 30 Mar 2010

SIC Mrs June Quinn requested from Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) information pertaining to a complaint that she had made against a named police officer. The Council withheld the information under a number of exemptions in Part 2 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, in which the Council additionally relied upon section 38(1)(b) of FOISA to withhold the information, Mrs Quinn remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Council additionally relied upon section 38(1)(a) of FOISA. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mrs Quinn’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the report under sections 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 053 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433779

Loch Awe Improvement Association vArgyll District Salmon Fishery Board and Scottish Ministers: SIC 5 Jul 2010

SIC Statutory records kept by a fish farming business – Fish Legal on behalf of Loch Awe Improvement Association and Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (Fish Legal) requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) information relating to an escape of farmed fish including statutory records kept by the fish faming business. The Ministers responded by providing much of the information requested but also indicated that they did not hold the information contained in statutory records maintained by the fish farming business. Following a review, Fish Legal remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision, arguing that the records were held by the fish farm on behalf of the Ministers, and so (in terms of regulation 2(2)(b)) were held by the Ministers for the purposes of the EIRs.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that statutory records compiled and retained by the fish farming business were not held on behalf of the Ministers therefore that the Ministers were correct to advise Fish Legal that these records were not held.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 116 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433844

Collie v Common Services Agency for The Scottish Health Service: SIC 26 May 2010

SIC Childhood leukaemia statistics in Dumfries and Galloway – This decision replaces Decision 021/2005 Michael Collie and the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service issued by the Commissioner in August 2005.
In 2005, shortly after the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) came into force, Mr Collie made an information request to the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service (the CSA) for childhood leukaemia statistics for the Dumfries and Galloway area. The CSA refused to disclose the statistics on the basis that the disclosure could lead to the identification of the children involved. The Commissioner agreed that disclosure would lead to identification, and instead required the CSA to disclose the statistics, but in a way which was designed to protect against identification of individuals.
The CSA appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the Court of Session and then to the House of Lords. The House of Lords allowed a number of the CSA’s grounds of appeal, quashed the decision and remitted the case back to the Commissioner for further investigation.
Following further investigation, the Commissioner found that the CSA partially failed to deal with Mr Collie’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. While he agreed that the information which was the subject of Mr Collie’s information request was exempt under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA, on the basis that the statistics in question were sensitive personal data, the disclosure of which would breach the first data protection principle, he also found that the CSA failed to comply fully with the duty under section 1(1) of FOISA by failing to provide the statistical information to Mr Collie in a form which would not lead to the identification of the individuals in question, when such disclosure was possible. The Commissioner has agreed with the CSA the form in which this information should be disclosed.

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 021 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433801

Rowlands v Scottish Water: SIC 21 Jul 2010

SIC Mr Rowlands requested from Scottish Water information relating to correspondence between Scottish Water and others relating to houses at Cairndow, Argyll. Scottish Water responded by supplying information relating to the request. Following a review, as a consequence of which Scottish Water provided further information and confirmed that the request had been dealt with under the EIRs, Mr Rowlands remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following the investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that Scottish Water had provided Mr Rowlands with all the relevant information it held.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 131 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433853

Tom Gordon v Scottish Ministers: SIC 2 Mar 2010

Travel and accommodation costs for members of Council of Economic Advisors
Mr Tom Gordon requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) details of travel and accommodation costs for members of Council of Economic Advisors (CEA).
The Ministers responded by withholding the information in terms of section 38(1)(b) of FOISA.
Following a review, during which the Ministers released the majority of the information to Mr Gordon, but withheld details of the start and end points of journeys undertaken by CEA members in terms of 38(1)(b) of FOISA, Mr Gordon remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the Ministers additionally applied the exemption at section 30(c) of FOISA to the withheld information, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had partially failed to deal with Mr Gordon’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that the Ministers had correctly withheld information constituting personal addresses of CEA members. He did not however accept that disclosure of the remaining information would breach any of the data protection principles nor that it would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially the effective conduct of public affairs. He required the Ministers to release the relevant information to Mr Gordon.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 033 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433773

Alex Mclaren and Fife Council: SIC 2 Mar 2010

Mr McLaren requested from Fife Council (the Council) information relating to meetings between a specified developer or its representatives and the Council regarding proposals to develop certain land at Dunfermline. The Council responded by providing Mr McLaren with information it claimed to be all it held within the scope of his request. Following a review, Mr McLaren remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr McLaren’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs, by providing all the relevant information it held and advising the applicant to that effect, and therefore he did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 032 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433764

Cannell v Glasgow City Council: SIC 21 Apr 2011

Placements in Council care homes –
Mr Cannell requested from Glasgow City Council (the Council) the date on which an instruction had been given to social workers to make elderly care placements in its own care homes before using private or voluntary sector homes. The Council responded by indicating that it had no policy requiring such an arrangement and therefore did not therefore consider itself to hold such information. Following a review, Mr Cannell remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, although the Commissioner was not entirely satisfied with the Council’s handling of Mr Cannell’s request for information, he accepted that the Council had been correct to give Mr Cannell notice that it did not hold the requested information.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 080 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433722

James Graham v Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority: SIC 21 Apr 2011

SIC Mr Graham requested from Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority (the Authority) scientific and other specified information relating to the granting of planning permission for pontoon moorings on the River Leven. The Authority responded by releasing information to Mr Graham. Following a review, Mr Graham remained dissatisfied that more information had not been supplied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Authority had partially failed to deal with Mr Graham’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs, by omitting a small amount of information which was no longer readily accessible online. Given that the information was released during the investigation, he did not require the Authority to take any action.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 081 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433723

Paul Giusti v North Lanarkshire Council: SIC 22 Mar 2011

Contact details for landlords on the register of private landlords – Mr Paul Giusti (Mr Giusti) requested from North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) the contact information for all landlords registered with the Council during a specified 30 month period. The Council responded by withholding the information under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA. Following a review, Mr Giusti remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Council indicated that it also considered the withheld information to be exempt under section 30(c) of FOISA. Following the investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council was entitled to withhold the information in terms of section 30(c) of FOISA on the grounds that its disclosure would be likely to prejudice substantially the effective conduct of public affairs. He concluded that the Council acted in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA by refusing to supply the withheld information to Mr Giusti.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 063 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433704

Visible Means Limited and Board of Management of Carnegie College: SIC 11 Mar 2011

Visible Means Limited (Visible Means) requested from the Board of Management of Carnegie College (the College) specified information relating to a logo it had designed. The College responded by advising that it did not hold the information in question. Following a review, Visible Means remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the College had dealt with Visible Means’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by advising Visible Means that it did not hold the requested information.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 049 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433715

Dr X v Scottish Ministers: SIC 20 Apr 2011

SIC Dr X requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) certain correspondence relating to Dr X. The Ministers responded by treating this as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Following a review, as a result of which the Ministers also relied on section 38(1)(a) of FOISA, Dr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had dealt with Dr X’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the information as the applicant’s personal data in accordance with the exemption in section 38(1)(a) of FOISA. He did not require the Ministers to take any action

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 078 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433717

Pearson v North Lanarkshire Council: SIC 22 Mar 2011

SIC Mr Pearson requested from North Lanarkshire Council (the Council) a copy of a fee proposal submitted by a consultancy firm. The Council withheld the information under regulation 10(5)(e) of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs). Mr Pearson remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Pearson’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs, by applying the exception in regulation 10(5)(e) (which relates to commercial and industrial confidentiality) of the EIRs to withhold the fee proposal.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 061 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433697

Fairmilehead Community Council and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 9 Feb 2011

SIC Failure to respond to a request for review – This decision considers whether the City of Edinburgh Council complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs) in responding to an information request made by the Secretary of Fairmilehead Community Council.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 026 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433666

Simon Johnson of The Daily Telegraph and Scottish Ministers: SIC 9 Feb 2011

Revised local income tax revenue projections – Mr Simon Johnson (Mr Johnson), the Scottish Political Editor of the Daily Telegraph, requested information relating to revised local income tax revenue projections from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers). The Ministers withheld information on the grounds that it was exempt from disclosure under section 29(1)(a) of FOISA, which applies to any information that relates to the formulation or development of government policy.
The information withheld by the Ministers comprised a single document prepared by the Office of the Chief Economic Advisor. During the investigation, various steps were taken to establish whether any further information was held. Having reviewed a number of documents that had been considered by the Ministers and judged not to be relevant to Mr Johnson’s request, the Commissioner took the view that one document contained further information falling within the terms of his request. The Ministers indicated that they would also consider this information to be exempt in terms of section 29(1)(a) of FOISA.
The Commissioner found that the exemption in section 29(1)(a) applied to the relevant information in both of the documents under consideration. However, he concluded that the public interest in maintaining this exemption was outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the information. The Commissioner required the Ministers to disclose the relevant information to Mr Johnson.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 025 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433676

Cairns and Scottish Enterprise: SIC 25 Mar 2011

SIC Complaint handling arrangements – Mr Edward Cairns requested from Scottish Enterprise information relative to its complaint handling arrangements. Scottish Enterprise responded by providing Mr Cairns with an explanation of its processes. Following a review, Mr Cairns remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Scottish Enterprise had partially failed to deal with Mr Cairns’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by failing to supply all of the requested information as required by section 1(1). As Scottish Enterprise disclosed the requested information to Mr Cairns during the investigation, the Commissioner did not require Scottish Enterprise to take any further action in response to this decision.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 068 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433696

McWilliam and Others v Glasgow City Council: EAT 9 Mar 2011

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Compromise
Compromise agreements. Whether compliance with section 77(4B) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Equal pay Claimants. No prior claims presented to Employment Tribunal. Whether the compromise agreements related to ‘particular complaints’? Whether the Claimants ‘received advice’ from an ‘independent adviser’? Whether their solicitors were ‘acting in the matter for the Respondent’? A local authority, in anticipation of having to face thousands of equal pay claims, met with unions and agreed settlement proposals then contacted various large firms of solicitors who agreed to act for individual employees. The employees were invited to meetings at which, as a group, they received a PowerPoint presentation from one of the solicitors and thereafter had individual meetings with solicitors during which compromise agreements were signed. On appeal, Tribunal’s judgment that the compromise agreements met the statutory requirements and were valid, upheld.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2011] UKEAT 0036 – 10 – 1003, [2011] IRLR 568

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Scotland

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.432793

Morris v Rae: SCS 5 Apr 2011

The complainer had purchased land from the defender, but the Keeper of the Registers refused to register the transfer, saying that the disponer was not the owner. The claim was for breach of warrandice.

Judges:

Lord Clarke

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 30, 2011 SCLR 428, 2011 SLT 701, 2011 GWD 13-305, [2011] CSIH 30

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Clark v Lindale Homes Limited SCS 1994
The court set out the conditions to found a claim for breach of warrandice on a land purchase: ‘Although eviction did not mean physical removal, it did involve the emergence of a real or threatened burden on the property which had to come from a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Morris v Rae SC 7-Nov-2012
The pursuer had bought land from the responder which in turn had bought from a company now in liquidation. On application for registration, the Keepr of the registers said the title had not been made out, and he was unable to complete the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Registered Land

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431766

A M Gillespie and Co v John Howden and Co, Et E Contra: SCS 7 Mar 1885

A customer ordered from a shipbuilder a ship according to specification, which bore, inter alia, that the ship was ‘to Carry 1800 tons dead weight, including coals, on 14 1/2 feet draught,’ and that a model was to be submitted for purchaser’s approval. There was no stipulation as to speed. In implement of this contract the shipbuilder submitted a model which was approved of by the purchaser, and thereafter completed and delivered a ship built according to the model. This ship was found to be short of the carrying capacity stipulated for by about 200 tons. In an action of damages against the shipbuilder for breach of contract he maintained that it was impossible to build a steamer according to the model which would carry the specified weight, and further, that the customer had suffered no damage, because a ship intended to carry such a weight, and of the description according to the model, would have been less valuable than that actually delivered. Held that the shipbuilder, being in breach of contract, was liable in damages.
Observed that in such a case the true standard of damage is the difference between the earning power of the ship contracted for and that furnished.

Citations:

[1885] SLR 22 – 527, (1885) 22 SLR 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Cammell Laird and Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass Co Ltd HL 1934
Shipbuilders agreed to build two ships to carry heavy liquids. They were to have propellers of special construction and diameter according to certain specifications. One proved unsatisfactory because it caused too much noise.
Held: If the . .
Cited – MT Hojgaard As v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another SC 3-Aug-2017
The defendants had requested tenders for the design and construction of an offshore wind farm. The court now considered the situation arising because of inconsistencies between documents in the tender request. The successful tender was based upon an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.580224

Gow v Grant: SCS 22 Mar 2011

The parties had lived together, but remained unmaried. The relationship broke down and Ms Gow claimed under the 2006 Act. Mr Grant now appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Mrs Gow’s application for an award of a capital sum was refused. There had been a number of cases which disclosed varying and contradictory approaches to the construction of section 28. In contrast to the scheme in sections 8 to 10 of the 1985 Act as to the rights of a spouse on divorce, the financial provision which the court was permitted to make by section 28 was in the nature of compensation for an imbalance of economic advantage or disadvantage. The court had to have regard to the precise wording of the section, and it must be satisfied that the requirements set out in the section are satisfied on the evidence. The difficulties would be minimised if it was recognised that the objective of the section was limited in scope. The sherriff’s award was not so justified by the facts in this case.

Judges:

Lord Drummond Young, Lord Justice Clerk (Gill), Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 25, 2011 Fam LR 50, 2011 GWD 12-280

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 28

Cited by:

Cited – Gow v Grant SC 24-May-2012
The parties had lived together as an unmarried couple, but separated. Mrs Gow applied under the 2006 Act for provision. Mr Grant’s appeal succeeded at the Inner House, and Mrs Gow now herself appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Act did . .
Appeal from – Gow v Grant SC 24-May-2012
The parties had lived together as an unmarried couple, but separated. Mrs Gow applied under the 2006 Act for provision. Mr Grant’s appeal succeeded at the Inner House, and Mrs Gow now herself appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The Act did . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Family

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430867

A v B: SCS 17 Oct 1470

A relict bruiking land per tacitam relocationem, and another husband marrying her after his decease, the master will get ane herezeld, because all labourers (husbands) are obliged therein to their master.

Citations:

[1470] Mor 5408

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Land

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.554197