Davies and Another (T/A All Stars Nursery) v The Scottish Commission for The Regulation of Care: SC 27 Feb 2013

The appellants ran a day care nursery regulated under the 2001 Act. The Commission, being concerned at the care provided, sought to revoke the registration in proceedings before the Sherriff’s Court. Before they were concluded, the Commission was dissolved. The transitional provisions appeared inadequate in failing to identify which body was to continue any proceedings, and whether the Commission was to be deemed to have continued in existence for this purpose.
Held: The appeal failed. The case was remitted to the Inner House for such further orders as were required to make progress. The matter was to be determined under the 2001 Act, since the case had not yet been determined.
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
[2013] UKSC 12, UKSC 2012/0048
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001
England and Wales
Citing:
At Sherriff’s CourtDavies and Another v The Scottish Commission for The Regulation of Care ScSf 9-May-2011
The pursuers ran a day care nursery. They had been subject to proceedings for the cancellation of their registration. The Commission had been dissolved and replaced by a new body, and they said that the new body could not be substituted in that . .
Appeal fromDavies and Another (T/A All Star) v The Scottish Commission for The Regulation of Care SCS 24-Jan-2012
The Commission had begun proceedings seeking to revoke the Davies’ registration to provide nursery facilities. The Commission was dissolved and the Sherriff had found that the new body could not take over the proceedings.
Held: The appeal . .
CitedInco Europe Ltd and Others v First Choice Distributors (A Firm) and Others HL 10-Mar-2000
Although the plain words of the Act would not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the circumstances presently applying, it was clear that the parliamentary draftsman had failed to achieve what he had wanted to, that the omission was in . .
CitedTonner and Another v Reiach and Hall SCS 12-Jun-2007
In order to succeed in a minute asserting want of prosecution, the defender must show (i) that there had been both inordinate and inexcusable delay and (ii) that there was an ‘added element of unfairness . . specific to the particular factual . .
CitedMoore v The Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd SCS 9-Dec-2008
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 April 2021; Ref: scu.471221