Category: Scotland

Picken and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland (1): SIC 18 Jun 2015

Recording and Classifying Crimes: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 24 February 2015, Mr Picken asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information contained in internal reports relating to recording and classifying crimes. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that Police Scotland failed to comply with Mr Picken’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.
The Commissioner has ordered Police Scotland to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 086 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550855

Donnelly and Chief Constable of Police Service of Scotland: SIC 19 Jun 2015

Whether Request Vexatious – On 4 October 2014, Mr Donnelly asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information relating to a specified incident in 2002.
Police Scotland stated that they considered Mr Donnelly’s request to be vexatious. Following a review, Mr Donnelly remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated, and agreed that Police Scotland were entitled to refuse to comply with Mr Donnelly’s request on the basis that it was vexatious.

[2015] ScotIC 088 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550859

Mr Bruce Sandison and Scottish Ministers: SIC 18 Jun 2015

Names of Officials Who Provided Advice To Ministers – On 25 August 2014, Mr Bruce Sandison asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information from communications between Marine Scotland and the Scottish Government relating to the effect of sea lice infestations at marine salmon farms on populations of wild salmonids.
The Ministers provided some information to Mr Sandison, but withheld other information under various exceptions. In his request for review, Mr Sandison challenged the decision to withhold the names of those individuals who had provided advice to Ministers. Following a review, Mr Sandison remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the Ministers had responded to Mr Sandison’s request for information in accordance with the EIRs. This was because the Ministers correctly applied the exception in regulation 11(2) to the names being withheld. She did not require the Ministers to take any action.

[2015] ScotIC 082 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550856

Hutcheon and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 22 Jun 2015

SIC User Satisfaction Surveys Reports: Failure To Respond Within Statutory Timescales – On 11 March 2015, Mr Hutcheon asked the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland (Police Scotland) for information about guidance for staff and officers who worked on the User Satisfaction Survey, along with reports on the findings of these surveys. This decision finds that Police Scotland failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that Police Scotland failed to comply with Mr Hutcheon’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 091 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550866

Mr N and South Lanarkshire Council: SIC 22 Jun 2015

Whether Request Vexatious – On 5 January 2015, Mr N asked South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) to confirm receiving specified payments for land and leases previously owned by him.
The Council responded to Mr N stating that it considered his request to be vexatious. The Commissioner investigated and found that the Council had acted correctly in its use of the vexatious provisions and in how it responded to Mr N’s request for information.

[2015] ScotIC 090 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550862

Mackinnon v Education Scotland: SIC 23 Jun 2015

SIC Information on HMIE Inspection – On 28 January 2015, Mr MacKinnon asked Education Scotland for correspondence about a school inspection which had taken place in 2008 and reported on in 2009. Education Scotland informed Mr MacKinnon that it did not hold some of the information. Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted this.

[2015] ScotIC 092 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550863

Mitchell and Risk Management Authority: SIC 22 Jun 2015

Changes To Risk Level Definitions – On 17 October 2014, Mr Mitchell asked the Risk Management Authority (the RMA) for information relating to changes to risk level definitions.
RMA responded and withheld the information under various exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, Mr Mitchell remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the RMA disclosed information to Mr Mitchell in relation to part of his request, subject to the redaction of personal data. The RMA continued to withhold other information in its entirety.
The Commissioner investigated and found that RMA had partially failed to respond to Mr Mitchell’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. She found that the RMA was entitled to withhold some of the information on the basis that disclosure was likely to substantially prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs. She also found that the RMA was entitled to apply section 38(1)(b) (Personal information) of FOISA to most of the information redacted as personal data.
The Commissioner found that the RMA had failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOISA, by initially failing to identify all of the information falling within the scope of Mr Mitchell’s request and also by withholding information under sections 37(1)(a)(iii) (Court records etc.) and 38(1)(b). She required the RMA to provide Mr Mitchell with the information it had wrongly withheld.

[2015] ScotIC 089 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550861

Mr and Mrs M and Scottish Prison Service (ICC Discussion of A Complaint): SIC 19 Jun 2015

On 14 April 2014 Mr and Mrs M asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for information held in relation to the Internal Complaints Committee’s (ICC’s) discussion of a particular complaint.
The SPS responded, withholding the information as personal data whose disclosure would breach the data protection principles. Following a review, Mr and Mrs M remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPS had responded to Mr and Mrs M’s request for information properly, in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 087 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550849

Chappell and Borders Health Board: SIC 12 Jun 2015

Policies and procedures: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 30 December 2014, Dr Chappell asked Borders Health Board (NHS Borders) for information about policies and procedures to deal with the protection of staff and patients if staff are diagnosed as suffering from an infection. This decision finds that NHS Borders failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).
The decision also finds that NHS Borders failed to comply with Dr Chappell’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 070 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550846

Company A Limited and Scottish Legal Complaints Commission: SIC 13 Feb 2015

SIC Information concerning the SLCC’s investigation procedures
On 6 August 2014, Company A Limited (Company A) asked the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (the SLCC) for information concerning the SLCC’s investigation procedures. The SLCC notified Company A that it did not hold the information it had requested.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SLCC had partially failed to respond to Company A’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the SLCC correctly notified Company A that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of parts (ii) and (iii) of the request.
In relation to part (i) of the request, the Commissioner found that the SLCC had incorrectly given notice that it did not hold any relevant information.
The Commissioner required the SLCC to issue a new review response to Company A in relation to part (i) of its request.

[2015] ScotIC 022 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.543110

Forbes v Transport Scotland: SIC 13 Feb 2015

Government funding for Prestwick Airport
On 19 June 2014, Mr Forbes asked Transport Scotland for information regarding Scottish Government funding for Prestwick Airport. On receiving no response, Mr Forbes asked for a review. Transport Scotland responded by disclosing some information and withholding the remainder under the exemption relating to the effective conduct of public affairs (section 30(c) of FOISA). Following an investigation, the Commissioner accepted this.

[2015] ScotIC 023 – 2015
Bailii
Scotland

Information

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.543117

Rona Hamilton and East Dunbartonshire Council: SIC 5 May 2015

SIC Specification of works: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 18 December 2014, Ms Hamilton asked East Dunbartonshire Council (the Council) for information about the specification for work and materials on which previously-supplied cost information was based, in relation to works to be carried out at a Primary School. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to requirement for review within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 061 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.548216

X and East Lothian Council: SIC 26 May 2015

Cemetery maps showing sections and lairs – On 25 August 2014, Mr X asked East Lothian Council (the Council) for information about cemeteries and crematoria, including a photocopy of all cemetery maps (including churchyards) showing sections and lairs. The Council responded that it could not provide a photocopy of the cemetery maps because of the format in which they were held. The Council provided details of how a search for a particular lair could be facilitated. Following a review, Mr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that, in general, the Council had properly responded to Mr X’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. Although the Council was incorrect to state that it held no recorded information covered by the request, the Commissioner accepted that, for the most part, the Council did not hold the information in the format required by Mr X, and had explained why the information could not be provided in this format (as required by section 11(3) of FOISA). The Commissioner found that the Council had failed to locate and provide one cemetery map which could be photocopied, and required the Council to provide this information to Mr X.

[2015] ScotIC 066 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.548214

Baker and Glasgow City Council: SIC 26 May 2015

SIC Penalty Charge Notices for bus lanes: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 4 February 2015, Mr Baker asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information about weekly breakdowns of the number of Penalty Charge Notices issued for a specified bus lane. This decision finds that the Council failed to respond to the request within the timescale allowed by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The decision also finds that the Council failed to comply fully with Mr Baker’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by FOISA.

[2015] ScotIC 063 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.548213

AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SCS 8 Jan 2010

The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2009 Act by judicial review. The Act would make their insured and themselves liable to very substantial unanticipated claims for damages for pleural plaques which would not previousl or otherwise have amounted to personal injury. Pleural plaques are physical changes in the pleura, detectable radiologically as areas of fibrous tissue by x-rays and CT scans. They are caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and, in common with other asbestos-related conditions, they tend to develop after a long latency period of 20 years or more. In most cases they have no discernible effect on an individual’s day to day physical health or well-being. They are asymptomatic, causing no pain or discomfort. They produce no disability or impairment of function, nor are they externally disfiguring. But it was common ground in Rothwell that they do indicate that the quantity of asbestos fibres in the lung is significant.
Held: The challenge to the law failed, and the 2009 Act, which was intended to reverse the effect of Rothwell in Scotland, was not set aside. However new laws in Scotland were reviewable at common law also, and not only under the 1998 Act. The court reviewed the law as it had developed. The 1998 Act had to be viewed on the basis that it was enacted against the existing background of common law, and not to stand in its stead, and the existence of challenges at common law for irrationality did not threaten it. Nevertheless any challenge to such primary legislation for irrationality must show an extreme of either bad faith absurdity or improper motive. Such had not been shown here.

Lord Emslie
2010 GWD 7-118, 2010 SLT 179, [2010] ScotCS CSOH – 02, Times 19-Jan-2010
SCS, Bailii
Scotland Act 1998, Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Lochgelly Iron and Coal Co v McMullan HL 10-Jul-1933
Lord Wright coined the term ‘statutory negligence’. He affirmed the need for ‘damage’ as an essential element of actionable negligence, saying: ‘In strict legal analysis, negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct, whether in omission . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
Cited – Cartledge v E Jopling and Sons Ltd HL 1963
The plaintiffs were steel dressers who, in the course of their employment, had inhaled quantities of noxious dust which had caused them to suffer from pneumoconiosis. They issued proceedings on 1 October 1956 but were unable to show any breach of . .
Cited – Johnston v NEI International Combustion Ltd; Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd; similar HL 17-Oct-2007
The claimant sought damages for the development of neural plaques, having been exposed to asbestos while working for the defendant. The presence of such plaques were symptomless, and would not themselves cause other asbestos related disease, but . .
Cited – Brown v North British Steel Foundry Ltd OHCS 1968
The 1954 Act passed on 4 June 1954 but was not to affect any action or proceeding if the cause of action arose before that date. The Lord Ordinary found that the pursuer who sought damages for pneumoconiosis did not begin to suffer from until 1955. . .
Cited – Nicol v Scottish Power plc 1998
. .
Cited – Lambie v Toffolo Jackson Limited (In Liq) and Another OHCS 11-Nov-2003
. .
Cited – Gibson v McAndrew Wormald and Co Ltd 1998
Pleural plaques constituted an identifiable injury for which damages were recoverable. . .
Cited – Somerville v Scottish Ministers HL 24-Oct-2007
The claimants complained of their segregation while in prison. Several preliminary questions were to be decided: whether damages might be payable for breach of a Convention Right; wheher the act of a prison governor was the act of the executive; . .
Cited – Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v Greece ECHR 9-Dec-1994
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion, estoppel); Violation of Art. 6-1; Violation of P1-1; Pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial . .
Cited – Burden and Burden v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2008
(Grand Chamber) The claimants were sisters who had lived together all their lives. They complained of discrimination in their treatment under the Inheritance Tax system as opposed to the treatment of a same sex couple living in a sexual . .
Cited – Sisojeva And Others v Latvia ECHR 16-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Violation of Art. 8; No violation of Art. 34; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses – claim rejected. . .
Cited – Swanson v Manson SCS 16-Jan-1907
Lord Ardwall said that: ‘No person is entitled to subject another to the trouble and expense of a litigation unless he has some real interest to enforce or protect.’ . .
Cited – Trustees of the Harbour of Dundee v D and J Nicol HL 10-Dec-1914
The pursuers challenged an initiative by the defenders which allegedly harmed their local steamer excursion business. The House was asked whether steamers acquired by a statutory body of harbour trustees who maintained a service of steamers for . .
Cited – Wright v Stoddard International Plc and Another (No 2) SCS 23-Oct-2007
(Supplementary Opinion) Lord Uist applied the decision in Rothwell, although on the facts he would not have awarded damages anyway. . .
Cited – Vatan v Russia ECHR 7-Oct-2004
ECHR Judgment (Preliminary Objections) – Preliminary objection allowed (lack of victim status) – inadmissible.
‘The Court recalls that the term ‘victim’ used in Art. 34 denotes the person directly affected . .
Cited – Wilson v Independent Broadcasting Authority OHCS 1979
In the lead up to the Scottish referendum on Devolution, the Authority required the broadcasters to carry party political broadcasts for each of the four main parties. Three parties favoured voting yes in the referendum, and the authority was . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
Cited – The Christian Federation of Jehovah’s Witnesses of France v France ECHR 6-Nov-2001
(Non-admissibility Decision) It was affirmed: ‘that Article 34 of the Convention requires that an individual applicant should claim to have been actually affected by the violation he alleges. That Article does not institute for individuals a kind of . .
Cited – The National and Provincial Building Society, The Leeds Permanent Building Society And The Yorkshire Building Society v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Oct-1997
There was no breach of human rights by the retrospective removal of a right to reclaim overpaid tax. Such a decision was within the general power of a government to impose and collect tax. Not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation . .
Cited – Whaley v Lord Watson SCS 16-Feb-2000
The Scottish Parliament and its members have a limited statutory immunity from suit. No interdict or other order could be made against a member of the Parliament if the effect would be to grant an order against the Parliament not otherwise . .
Cited – Rape Crisis Centre v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2000
The petitioner sought judicial review of a decision to allow the boxer Mike Tyson to visit the UK.
Held: The Immigration Rules conferred no express or implied rights on third parties such as the petitioners. A review was refused.
Lord . .
Cited – In re Salmon: Priest v Uppleby 1889
A third party allegedly providing the defendant with an indemnity in respect of the plaintiff’s claim was only indirectly affected by the appeal of the plaintiff against the defendant. The third party would only be affected if the plaintiff . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – MacCormick v Lord Advocate SCS 30-Jul-1953
LP Cooper reserved his opinion on the question whether the provisions in article XIX of the Treaty of Union which purport to preserve the Court of Session and the laws relating to private right which are administered in Scotland are fundamental law . .
Cited – Regina v Liverpool City Council Ex Parte Muldoon; Regina v Same Ex Parte Kelly HL 11-Jul-1996
The claimant sought to challenge a refusal of the Housing Authority to pay housing benefit. The Secretary of State had made the relevant Regulations determining eligibility for benefits. If the challenge were successful, the Secretary of State would . .

Cited by:
At Outer House – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v The Scottish Ministers and Others SCS 12-Apr-2011
(First Division) The insurance companies sought judicial review of the 2009 Act which lay them open, as employers liability insurers, to substantial historic claims for asymptotic neural plaque injuries.
Held: The companies’ appeal failed. The . .
At Outer House – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Constitutional, Human Rights, Personal Injury

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.392553

Flynn, Meek, Nicol and McMurray v Her Majesty’s Advocate: PC 18 Mar 2004

PC (High Court of Justiciary) The applicants had each been convicted of murder, and complained that the transitional provisions for determining how long should be served under the life sentences infringed their Human Rights, the Act being made outside the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Held: The 2001 Act incorporated the Human Rights Convention into Scottish law. It should not be taken to take away any existing right. Accordingly when deciding the punitive part of a punishment so as to prevent reference of his case to the Parole Board, the court must take account any date already set for such a hearing.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
Times 18-Mar-2004, [2004] UKPC D1
PC, Bailii
Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 2, Convention Rights (Compliance) (Scotland) Act 2001
Citing:
Cited – Elliott (No 2) v HM Advocate 1997
When passing a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment a trial judge was required by section 218 of the 1975 Act to specify the date of the commencement of the sentence The question whether a mandatory life sentence should be backdated was not an . .
Cited – Wynne v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-1994
A Discretionary lifer is not entitled to a review by a court of his continued detention. His article five rights were not breached. Where a national court imposed a fixed sentence of imprisonment, the supervision required by article 5.4 was . .
Cited – Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Oct-1990
The applicants, discretionary life prisoners, complained of a violation on the ground that they were not able to have the continued lawfulness of their detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals throughout their imprisonment.
Held: A . .
Cited – McCreaddie v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 6-Sep-2002
. .
Cited – Stewart v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 6-Sep-2002
The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 1993. He was an existing adult mandatory life prisoner for the purposes of Part I of the Schedule to the 2001 Act. In 2002 the High Court specified the punishment part of his . .
Cited – Stafford v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-2002
Grand Chamber – The appellant claimed damages for being held in prison beyond the term of his sentence. Having been released on licence from a life sentence for murder, he was re-sentenced for a cheque fraud. He was not released after the end of the . .
Cited – In Re Findlay, in re Hogben HL 1985
A public authority, and the Prison Service in particular, is free, within the limits of rationality, to decide on any policy as to how to exercise its discretions; it is entitled to change its policy from time to time for the future, and a person . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 24-Jul-1997
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer, after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary, merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to . .

Cited by:
Cited – Uttley, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2004
In 1995 the defendant was sentenced to twelve years for rapes committed in 1983. He complained that the consequences of the later sentence were adverse because of the 1991 Act. He would now serve three quarters of the sentence rather than two . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.194651

Reclaiming Motion In Petition of Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue To Detain the Prisoner In Inhuman and Degrading Prison C: SCS 18 Dec 2001

A prisoner sought an order for his removal from a prison found to have a regime which breached his human rights. The Crown replied that an order could not be made under s21 of the 1947 Act.
Held: The prisoner had followed through his rights to petition the governor. Had he done so and failed, he would have been able to seek judicial review. Nevertheless, the case should now go ahead. The pleas in law were rejected.

Lord Marnoch and Lord Hardie and Lord Weir
ScotC
European Convention on Human Rights 3, Crown Proceedings Act 1947 47, Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 3(1), Scotland Act 1998 57(2)
Citing:
Cited – Petition of Andrew Scott and Scott Davidson for Judicial Review of A Decision To Continue Their Detention In Inhumane Prison Conditions SCS 26-Oct-2001
Each applicant sought an interim order against the Scottish Minister with respect to their treatment in prison. It had been found that the conditions in Barlinnie Prison were inhumane. The Crown responded that the court had no jurisdiction to make . .
Cited – West v Secretary of State for Scotland SCS 1992
The court asked what was to be considered to be truly an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court.
Held: Lord President (Hope): ‘The public or private nature of the inferior body or tribunal is not decisive, nor is it necessary . .
Cited – Carlton Hotel Co v Lord Advocate 1921
Lord Dundas: ‘This is a summary petition under section 91 of the Court of Session Act, 1868, for an order for specific performance of an alleged statutory duty. The remedy thus sought is peculiar and drastic. It has not, I believe, been frequently . .
Cited – Russell v Magistrates of Hamilton 1897
An interdict was granted against the Provost and Magistrates of Hamilton. . .
Cited – Bell v Secretary of State for Scotland 1933
The Lord Ordinary granted interim interdict against the respondent. There was no any contradictor and the court relied on two English cases. . .
Cited – M v Home Office and Another; In re M HL 27-Jul-1993
A Zairian sought asylum, but his application, and an application for judicial review were rejected. He was notified that he was to be returned to Zaire, but then issued new proceedings for judicial review. The judge said that his removal should be . .
Cited – Conway v Rimmer HL 28-Feb-1968
Crown Privilege for Documents held by the Polie
The plaintiff probationary police constable had been investigated, prosecuted and cleared of an allegation of theft. He now claimed damages for malicious prosecution, and in the course of the action, sought disclosure of five documents, but these . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson HL 24-Jul-1997
The Home Secretary may not later extend the tariff for a lifer, after it had been set by an earlier Home Secretary, merely to satisfy needs of retribution and deterrence: ‘A power conferred by Parliament in general terms is not to be taken to . .
Cited – McDonald v Secretary of State for Scotland IHCS 2-Feb-1994
The pursuer, a prisoner, complained that he had been subject to repeated searches which he claimed were illegal. He sought damages and an injunction.
Held: The action which the pursuer had raised was an ordinary action in the sheriff court was . .
Cited – British Medical Association v Greater Glasgow Health Board HL 1989
The House considered the availability of orders against the Crown in Scotland. It is inconceivable that Parliament should have intended to fetter the right of the subject to obtain a prohibitory order more strictly in Scotland than in England. The . .
Cited – Regina v Home Department ex parte Herbage 1987
An injunction could be pronounced against ministers of the Crown acting in their official capacity. . .
Cited – Income Tax Special Commissioners v Pemsel HL 20-Jul-1891
Charitable Purposes used with technical meaning
The House was asked whether, in a taxing statute applying to the whole of the United Kingdom and allowing for deductions from and allowances against the income of land vested in trustees for charitable purposes, the words ‘charitable purposes’ . .
Cited – McCartan Turkington Breen (A Firm) v Times Newspapers Limited HL 2-Nov-2000
(Northern Ireland) The defendant reported a press conference at which the claims denying the criminal responsibility of an army private were made. The report was severely critical of the claimants, who then sued in defamation. The defendants claimed . .

Cited by:
Cited – Davidson v Scottish Ministers HL 15-Dec-2005
The complainant a prisoner sought an order that he should not be kept in conditions found to be inhumane. He had been detained in Barlinnie priosn. The Crown replied that a mandatory order was not available against the Scottish Ministers.
See Also – Scott Davidson v The Scottish Ministers (No 2) IHCS 11-Sep-2002
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Prisons, Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 31 December 2021; Ref: scu.168847

Chesser, Appeal Against Sentence By, Against HM Advocate: HCJ 25 May 2015

Appeal against sentences imposed for ‘ (2) theft of fuel on 15 January 2014; (6), (8) and (12) reset of cars on 5, 6 and 9 February; (13) dangerous driving, principally by attempting to evade the police on 9 February; (14)-(16) driving on the same occasion with no insurance and no licence and committing a statutory breach of the peace, involving homophobic remarks towards the police; (18) allowing himself to be carried in a stolen car on 19 February; (20) driving a stolen car on 10 March; (23)-(25) driving with no licence, no insurance and failing to identify the driver of a car, in terms of a statutory requirement, on 11 March; and (27) a breach of the appellant’s bail curfew on 23 March. ‘

Lord Carloway LCJ, Lord Malcolm
[2015] ScotHC HCJAC – 41
Bailii

Scotland, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.547243

Amir Aryan Manesh and Glasgow City Council: SIC 17 Apr 2015

SIC Flooding of a property: failure to respond within statutory timescales – On 6 January 2015, Mr Manesh asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information about requests and correspondence sent to the Council in connection with flooding to his property. The decision finds that the Council failed to comply with Mr Manesh’s requirement for review within the timescale set down by the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).
The Commissioner has ordered the Council to comply with the requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 052 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546445

Forbes and Transport Scotland: SIC 17 Apr 2015

On 16 October 2014, Mr Forbes asked Transport Scotland for information which would show the content and detail of any discussions between the Scottish Government and Network Rail on the subject of the refurbishment of Prestwick Airport Station. Transport Scotland failed to respond and Mr Forbes asked for a review. Following a review, in which Transport Scotland disclosed some information, but withheld other information, Mr Forbes remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner investigated and found that Transport Scotland had properly responded to Mr Forbes’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA and the EIRs. The Commissioner accepted that information was correctly withheld under regulation 10(5)(f) of the EIRs and that Transport Scotland had identified all the information it held that fell within the scope of the request.

[2015] ScotIC 054 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546448

Howarth and Chief Constable of The Police Service of Scotland: SIC 29 Apr 2015

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) sections 1(1) and (6) (General entitlement); 2(1)(a) and (2)(e)(ii) (Effect of exemptions); 38(1)(b), (2)(a)(i) and (2)(b) and (5) (definition of ‘the data protection principles’, ‘data subject’ and ‘personal data’) (Personal information)
Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) sections 1(1) (Basic interpretative provisions) (definition of personal data); 2 (Sensitive personal data); (3) (The special purposes); Schedules 1 (The data protection principles) (the first data protection principle); 3 (Conditions relevant for the purposes of the first principle: processing of sensitive personal data) (conditions 1, 5 and 10).
Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000 (Circumstances in which Sensitive Personal Data may be processed – paragraph 3)
The full text of each of the statutory provisions cited above is reproduced in Appendix 1 to this decision. The Appendix forms part of this decision.

[2015] ScotIC 058 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546447

Milligan and Glasgow City Council: SIC 17 Apr 2015

Whether a request was vexatious – On 27 October 2014, Mr James Milligan asked Glasgow City Council (the Council) for information relating to parking restriction signs in a specified area.
The Council did not respond to Mr Milligan’s request and informed him that it was not obliged to comply with his subsequent requirement for review. This was on the basis that it considered his request to be vexatious and it considered it had already given notice to this effect in relation to a previous identical or substantially similar request.
The Commissioner did not accept that the request was vexatious and found that the Council was not entitled to refuse to give notice to Mr Milligan to this effect in terms of section 16(5) of FOISA.
She required the Council to comply with Mr Milligan’s requirement for review.

[2015] ScotIC 055 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546446

Ashley and Others v Tesco Stores and Others: CA 15 Jan 2015

The court was asked ‘ is the applicable time limit for service out of the jurisdiction on a Scottish company where it has been served pursuant to section 1139 of the Companies Act 2006 four months or six months?’

Arden, Kitchin, Gloster LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 414, [2015] WLR(D) 11
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Company, Scotland

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546452

Gillick v BP Chemicals: EAT 1993

Ms Gillick had made an application based on sex discrimination in the first place against an agency which had contracted out her services to various divisions of BP Chemicals Ltd. The Respondents were the Company which had done that and in their Notice of Appearance they disputed that there had been an employment relationship between themselves and Ms Gillick. They said ‘you were employed by BP’. She then applied to be allowed to add the defendant as a party. The defendant said that she was now well out of time, and Mrs Gillick now appealed an order to that effect.
Held: BP was to be added as a party. Whether or not to do so was a matter for the discretion of the tribunal. There was no time limit as such which applied to the addition of new or substituted parties. The Industrial Tribunal should treat an application to amend the complaint by the addition of a new respondent as a question of discretion, having regard to all the circumstances, not as one to be settled by the application of the rules of time-bar.
Lord Coulsfield said: ‘The presence of absence of a connection between the respondents may well be relevant in considering whether or not a genuine mistake has been made , and whether the Industrial Tribunal should exercise its discretion to allow the mistake to be corrected, but such considerations are relevant, if at all, as matters to be taken into account in exercising the discretion, rather than as limitations on the circumstances in which the discretion can be exercised.’ As to the case of Cocking: ‘We do not . . think that the Cocking approach is necessarily limited to cases in which the original and the new respondents are related as principal and subsidiary, or in some similar way. The presence or absence of a connection between the respondents may well be relevant in considering whether or not a genuine mistake has been made, and whether the industrial tribunal should exercise its discretion to allow the mistake to be corrected, but such considerations are relevant, if at all, as matters to be taken into account in exercising a discretion, rather than as limitations on the circumstances in which the discretion can be exercised.’

Lord Coulsfield
[1993] IRLR 437
Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 67(2), Sex Discrimination Act 1975 76(1), Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1985 (1985 no 17) 1 2 10 13(1) 14
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cocking v Sandhurst (Stationers) Ltd NIRC 1974
The Appellant employee had applied for leave to amend his first application by substituting the name of the parent company. The Tribunal held that the rules of procedure relating to time limits went to their jurisdiction and that the amended . .

Cited by:
Applied – Drinkwater Sabey Ltd v Burnett and Another EAT 5-Oct-1994
. .
Cited – 1A Centre Community Association Ltd v Gwiazda and others EAT 14-Jul-2000
The claimants alleged an unlawful deduction from their wages, and unfair dismissal. The employer appealed, complaining that the limited company had been added late. . .
Cited – Heald Nickinson Solicitors v Summers and others EAT 21-May-2002
The firm of solicitors appealed an order in which they had been substituted as defendants to a claim for unfair dismissal. They said they had been given no opportunity to object. They had taken over part of a firm which had got into difficulties and . .
Cited – McDermott v Florence Clothiers (Scotland) Ltd Original Shoe Company Ltd EAT 18-Nov-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Application/Claim. . .
Cited – Argyll and Clyde Health Board v Foulds and others EAT 11-Aug-2006
EAT Claimant sought to add a new respondent by way of amendment, almost seven months after he was dismissed by the existing first respondents and some four months after he had lodged his claim with the tribunal. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Scotland

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.276505

X and Scottish Prison Service: SIC 30 Mar 2015

Information relating to a tender – On 2 September 2014, Mr X asked the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS) for information concerning a tender.
The SPS responded by disclosing some information. The SPS withheld some information on the basis that it was exempt from disclosure in terms of sections 36(2) (Confidentiality) and 38(1)(b) (Personal data) of FOISA. Additionally, the SPS informed Mr X that it did not hold some of the requested information.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the SPS had partially failed to respond to Mr X’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. The Commissioner found that some of the withheld information did not comprise personal data and required the SPS to disclose it to Mr X. In respect of the information that did comprise personal data, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SPS was entitled to withhold it under the exemption in section 38(1)(b) of FOISA. The Commissioner also accepted that the SPS did not hold any recorded information concerning individuals contacted by telephone.

[2015] ScotIC 041 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545639

Z and Dumfries and Galloway Council: SIC 16 Mar 2015

On 13 February 2014, Mr Z asked Dumfries and Galloway Council (the Council) for a variety of information concerning work carried out at a residential property.
The Council responded by disclosing some information but withholding other information under the EIRs. Following a review, Mr Z remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Council disclosed most of the withheld information but continued to withhold a document which was an internal communication. It also continued to withhold some information on the grounds that it was personal data and disclosure would breach the data protection principles.
The Commissioner investigated and found that the public interest test favoured disclosure of the information in the internal communication. She also found that the Council correctly withheld the personal data.

[2015] ScotIC 034 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545640

Mclelland and Scottish Ministers: SIC 27 Feb 2015

SIC On 27 January 2014, Mr McLelland asked the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information about dentists who had obtained grants under the Scottish Dental Access Initiative (SDAI) from 2007 to the current date.
The Ministers disclosed some information, withheld some information, and notified Mr McLelland that they did not hold some of the information he had asked for. Following a review, Mr McLelland remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Ministers disclosed additional information to Mr McLelland, withholding only the names of the dentists who obtained grants or who had to repay some of the grant monies received.
The Commissioner found that the Ministers had partially failed to respond to Mr McLelland’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. The Ministers wrongly withheld the names of the dentists who had obtained a grant under the exemption in section 38(1)(b), but correctly applied this exemption to the names of dentists who had to repay some or all of the grant monies. She required the Ministers to disclose the names of all dentists who had obtained (but not had to repay) a SDAI grant.

[2015] ScotIC 027 – 2015
Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545620

Sibbald v Greig: SCS 18 Feb 1612

In what Cases a Bastard’s Effects fall to the Lord of Regality – The Archbishop of St Andrews found to have no right to the escheats of bastards deceasing within the bounds of his regality, by his general infeftment, unless he would offer to prove, that he was infeft per expressum in his regality, cum eschaetis bastardorum; notwithstanding that he alleged, That he and his predecessors had been in use many times, to decern upon the escheats of bastards deceasing within his regality and give declarators thereupon; which was found unlawful.

[1612] Mor 1354
Bailii

Scotland, Wills and Probate

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544322

Cowgrane: SCS 2 Dec 1609

A man found art and part in a spuilzie, because the goods had been conveyed directly to his house.
A man in the Lenox, pursued Denniston of Cowgrane and certain others, for the spoliation, or way-taking, resetting, with-holding, and detaining of certain his nolt; litiscontestation being made, he proved the away-taking furth of his byre of four nolt by Cowgrane, and that they were taken to the house of another Denniston that night, and keeped all that night; which the Lords found to be approbation of the spuilzie against the said pursuer, in respect of their resett. Thereafter it being alleged, That Cowgrane was dead since the act of litiscontestation, the Lords found, That no sentence could be given against him, because the depositions of the witnesses contained probation against Cowgrane.–The Lords found, That the act of litiscontestation made the quantity to divide in equal portions against all the defenders against whom any thing was proven; and therefore they deducted that part which answered to Cowgrane’s part, and decerned for the rest against the remanent defenders,

[1609] Mor 379
Bailii

Scotland

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544309

Thomas Wardlaw v Robert Gray: SCS 11 Jul 1611

Breach of Arrestment. Arrestment being laid, the party to whom the goods pertains, or in whose hands they are arrested, having received a copy, or ticket of the arrestment, and thereafter intromitted with the goods, the arrestment not being orderly loosed, may be pursued for breaking, of the arrestment, and consiscation of his goods, and punishment of his person. But, another party who had no knowledge of the arrestment, meeting therewith, may only be pursued to make the goods furthcoming.

[1611] Mor 786
Bailii

Scotland, Insolvency

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544316

Dempster v Dingwell: SCS 8 Mar 1610

Decree of furthcoming after the common debtor’s death.
*** In an arrestment upon a dependence, if the common debtor die before the claim be established against him by decree, the process must be transferred against his representatives; but, if decree be recovered against the common debtor himself, there is no necessity for transferring it after his death against his representatives; calling them alone is sufficient to found the arrester in his action of furthcoming; arrestment not falling, by the death of the common debtor, as it is does by the death of him in whose hands it is laid.

[1610] Mor 778
Bailii

Scotland

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544312

Lord Sanquhar v Chrichton of Ryhill: SCS 19 Nov 1611

A cause, carried on at the instance of the Sheriff principal, before the sheriff-depute, was advocated. – An action being pursued by my Lord Sanquhar before the sheriff depute in Nithsdale, against William Chrichton of Ryhill, for cutting of the said Lord’s green wood: The same was advocated to the Lords directly against the tenor of the act of Parliament anent cutting and destroying of woods.

[1611] Mor 365
Bailii

Scotland

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544317

Commissaries of Edinburgh v Russell: SCS 28 Nov 1609

Advocates are entitled to procure in all courts of the kingdom; but an inferior judge, to whom they offer any indignity, may amerciate them, or suspend or deprive them from procuring before him
Mr John Russell, procurator for Bessie Trumbell, and William Trumbell her father, in the action of annulling the pretended marriage betwixt the said Bessie and Robert Naper, depending before the Commissiaries of Edinburgh, and in the process of adherence, pursued by the said Robert against the said Bessie, giving in his eiked answers in the said cause of adherence in write, declared that the Commissaries should not be patrons of such a pernicious and shameful cause; and concluded in these terms, And albeit ye knew the said marriage to be altogether null and unlawful, yet ye will proceed against all law and justice; wherewith the Commissaries finding themselves highly injured, they ordained Mr John to pay twelve pounds of amand, and suspended him from procuring before them for a year; whereupon Mr John giving in his complaint to the Lords, and the Commissaries warned to answer to the complaint compearing, the matter was at length disputed upon these two heads: First, anent the power of the Commissaries in general, whether they might suspend, or deprive an advocate admitted by the Lords; and next, if this fact of Mr John Russell merited suspension therein. It was resolved, That the ordinar advocates admitted by the Lords, at their compearance in inferior courts, might so misbehave themselves, as the saids inferior judges might justly and lawfully suspend or deprive them from any farther procuring in their courts; and as to Mr John Russell’s particular offence, the Lords found it rash and indiscreet, and the Commissaries punishment very rigorous; and therefore calling in the saids parties, and the hail advocates who assisted Mr John Russell, as in a common cause concerning all their liberties, the Lords admonished the advocates to be modest, and not to give occasion, by their contempt to judges, to unlaw, suspend, or deprive them; declaring also, that if any wrong was unjustly offered to modest advocates, the Lords would censure and repair it; and as for Mr John Russell, the Lords ordained him to be more reverent to the Commisaries in time coming, and to delete the words, which they found contumelious, in his defences; and ordained them to restore him to his liberty of procuration, and thereafter gave him up his supplication; because they would not have any record of that variance to remain.

[1609] Mor 341
Bailii

Scotland, Legal Professions

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544308

Speir v Mure and Mureson: SCS 18 Dec 1611

Arrestments near in date, where each party had used due diligence were ranked pari passu. A party being obliged to two several creditors, whose bonds, registrations, inhibitions, and arrestments, are near one date, and used with all diligence:–The Lords, when they contend for making the goods furthcoming, will ordain the sum arrested by them to be divided amongst them pro rato debiti proportionally

[1611] Mor 808
Bailii

Scotland, Insolvency

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544319

Earl of Linlithgow v John Hamilton of Grange: SCS 12 Jan 1610

In an action of registration of ane decreet-arbitral, pursued by the Earl of Linlithgow against John Hamilton of Grange, it was found, that the decreet-arbitral was null ipso jure, because it was not pronounced within the precise time contained in the submission; and that, notwithstanding the submission bore to be pronounced with prorogation of days; and that there was a prorogation made by the judges after the term contained in the submission; and that, to supply the parties consent to the prorogation, it was offered to be proven, by the party’s oath, that he consented the same should be prorogate. The reason of this decision was, because, according to the party’s consent, the judges had not prorogate in due time, viz. infra tempus compress:

[1610] Mor 636
Bailii

Scotland

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544310

Buchanan v Campbell: SCS 1 Jun 1601

Lands or goods of a bastard, or person deceasing without heirs, pertain not to the Lord of Regality, unless specially expressed in his infeftment
Mr Johne Dalzell, and Susanna Buchanan his spous, havand be gift of our Soverane Lord, the escheit of all guddis and dettis, whilk pertenit to umquhile—-Campbell, dochter to the said Susanna and umquhile Colene Campbell, bastard son to Archibald Erle of Argyll, procreat betwixt the said Susanna and the said Colene, as ultimas haeres to the said dochter deceiss, and without ony lawful airs, pursuit the Laird of Caddell, as aire be provision to the said umquhile Colene, for the soume of ane thousand punds, whilk the said Colene, be contract, had obligit him, his heirs and successors in his lands, to pay to the air’s femell to be gottin betwixt him and the said Susanna, the soume of ane thousand pundis.-It wes alledgit, That his donatour could have no action upone his Majestie’s gift, becaus the lands to the whilk Caddell succeidit, lay in the Regaltie of Argyll, and the persons dwelt thairin; and sua the gift appertenit to the Erle of Argyll be verteu of his regalitie.-It wes ansrit, That the gift of thingis falland be deceis of personis havand na lawful aires of thair awn blude as ultimus haeres, could not pertene to the Lord of Regalitie be the general privilege of regalitie, unles he wer infeft in that privilege per expressum, the sam being sua great ane richt, and sua deulie belanging to the King’s crowne, that it could not be comprehendit under ane general disposition of regalitie.–Which reply the Lords sand relevant, and in respect thairof, repellit the exception.–Next it it wes exceptit, That this soume could not pertene to the donatour, becaus nather the King nor his donatour could be in ane better cais, as ultimus haeres, nor the defunct; and the defunct could never have had richt to the soume controverted, unles sche had been aire to hir father, becaus it wes providit to the aires-femell, and sche not being aire femell, had na richt; and consequentlie the King, as ultimus haeres, could have na richt.-It wes ansrit, That the provision wes consavit in favour of the bairns femell; and albeit sche wes not servit aire, yet the successour to the lands wes ordanit, be contract, to pay that soume for her provision, and the King had succeidit in her richt.–The Lords repellit the alledgeance, and sand that the donatour had richt.

[1601] Mor 1353
Bailii

Scotland, Wills and Probate

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544303

Clark v Erle of Perth: SCS 26 Feb 1611

Decree of furthcoming after the common debtor’s death.
*** In an arrestment upon a dependence, if the common debtor die before the claim be established against him by decree, the process must be transferred against his representatives; but, if decree be recovered against the common debtor himself, there is no necessity for transferring it after his death against his representatives; calling them alone is sufficient to found the arrester in his action of furthcoming; arrestment not falling, by the death of the common debtor, as it is does by the death of him in whose hands it is laid.
A man being bound by a registered bond for a sum of money, and his horse being arrested for the same, and himself, and the party in whose hands the horse was, being called to make him furthcoming, the debtor dying bastard; the creditor summoned of new the haver of the horse in his hands, to make the horse furthcoming, and the King’s Treasurer and Advocate for their interest: Which order the Lords found sufficient, because he had affected the horse by arrestment before the bastard’s death.

[1611] Mor 778
Bailii

Scotland

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.544315