Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Scotland - From: 1980 To: 1984

This page lists 53 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Stuurman v HM Advocate [1980] CLY 3011; 1980 JC 111
1980

Lord Justice General (Emslie)
Scotland, Criminal Practice
The court was asked whether a fair trial could take place at all in the light of the pre-trial publicity. Held: The court noted that the palliative of judicial directions can never be absolutely effective, but the judge had done what he could. Lord Justice General (Emslie) said: "the question for us is whether on 25 January 1980 the risk of prejudice as the result of these publications was then so grave that even the careful directions of the trial judge could not reasonably be expected to remove it. In our opinion that question falls to be answered in the negative. The publications occurred almost four months before the trial diet was called. In considering the effect of these publications at the date of trial the court was well entitled to bear in mind that the public memory of newspaper articles and news broadcasts and of their detailed contents is notoriously short and, that being so, that the residual risk of prejudice to the prospects of fair trial for the applicants could reasonably be expected to be removed by careful directions such as those which were in the event given by the trial Judge."
1 Citers


 
Stewart v H M Advocate 1980 SLT 245
1980
HCJ
Lord Justice General Emslie
Scotland, Criminal Practice
The court re-affirmed the general rule of practice, that where the Crown sets out to prove that a particular person is the perpetrator of a crime the identification of the accused as its perpetrator must not be left to implication.
1 Citers


 
Melon v Hector Powe Ltd 1980 SC 188
1980
SCS
Lord President Emslie
Employment, Scotland

1 Citers


 
Moore v Electoral Registration Officer for Borders 1980 SLT 39
1980
ScSf

Scotland, Elections
(Sheriff Court of Lothian and Borders) The court considered the construction of the words "unable or likely to be unable to go in person to the polling station", so as to qualify somebody to apply for a postal vote under the 1949 Act. This led to the question of just how difficult it had to be for a voter to be able to attend the polling station before he could be characterised as being "unable" to go in person. Held: The words were to be construed with regard to the legislative purpose of the statute: "I should have thought that the exceptions laid down in section 12(1) were designed to encourage an elector to exercise his vote rather than put difficulties in his way."
Representation of the People Act 1949 12(1)
1 Citers


 
Mills and Allen Ltd v City of Glasgow [1980] JPL 409
1980
SCS

Scotland, Planning, Media
The sherriff court had not accepted a submission by the Council that an alteration from a painted gable wall advertising Raleigh Bicycles, to a smaller advertisement for Carlsberg Special Brew, painted onto plywood sheets which were nailed to the wall and surrounded by a timber frame, was a "substantial alteration" in the use of the site for the display of advertisements. Held: "On the second point the Sheriff could not accept, however, that the interposition of sheets of plywood between the paint and the stonework of the building must necessarily be regarded as a substantial alteration in the manner of the use of the site for the purpose of displaying advertisements, nor could he see that it necessarily made any difference that, according to the pursuers' averments, the new advertisement was surrounded by 'a nominal timber frame'. The general appearance and effect of an advertisement might be the same whether it was painted directly on a wall or on sheets of plywood or metal nailed to the wall, or printed on paper which in turn was pasted on the underlying surface. Changes from one such method to another may be no more than comparatively minor changes in the method used to achieve what may in appearance be almost exactly the same display. They were not necessarily substantial alterations in the manner of the use of the site for the purpose of that display."
1 Citers


 
AEI Cables Limited v McLay [1980] IRLR 84
1980
SCS

Scotland, Employment
It was found that the only remaining reason for supporting the decision that the dismissal was unfair, was identified as the employee's length of service -- the remaining reason given by the industrial tribunal for finding the dismissal unfair. Held. That is a relevant consideration in many cases, but it would not be reasonable to expect an employer who had been deceived by the employee, in the way in which the respondent deceived the appellants, to have any further confidence in him and to maintain the employment. The character of the employee's conduct was of so serious that the length of his prior service was not material.
1 Citers


 
McIntyre v Armitage Shanks Ltd 1980 SC (HL) 46
1980
HL

Scotland, Limitation
A workman contracted pneomoconiosis and knew all the relevant facts but was advised by the local secretary of his trade union that he could not sue. His later claim was met by a defence of limtation. Held: The action was time barred.
1 Citers


 
Keane v Gallagher [1980] ScotHC HCJAC - 4
11 Jan 1980
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Lang Bros v Goldwell [1980] ScotCS CSIH - 1
29 Feb 1980
scs

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Winston v Patrick [1980] ScotCS CSIH - 2
12 Mar 1980
scs

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Maxwell and others v HM Advocate [1980] ScotHC HCJAC - 3
21 Mar 1980
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
British Bata Shoe Co Ltd v Double M Shah Ltd [1980] ScotCS CSOH - 4
6 Jun 1980
scs

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Scotmotors v Dundee Petrosea [1980] ScotCS CSIH - 3
2 Jul 1980
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Dean v John Menzies Ltd [1980] ScotHC HCJ - 1
3 Oct 1980
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]

 
 McCrone v Boots Farm Sales; SCS 17-Oct-1980 - [1980] ScotCS CSOH - 6
 
Milne v Tudhope [1980] ScotHC HCJ - 2
13 Nov 1980
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Inverclyde District Council v Lord Advocate (1981) 43 P and CR 375
1981

Lord Keith
Scotland, Planning
An application for submission of details supporting an application for outline planning permission had been made within the time limit. However, following an inquiry the Secretary of State had indicated that approval would be appropriate in respect of a more limited area, and had invited submission of detailed plans and information relating to the reduced area. The authority argued that such an amendment would be outside the scope of the original permission. They accepted that an amendment was possible within the three-year period, but submitted that once that period had come to an end no amendment whatever could validly be made. Held: The argument was rejected. Lord Keith said: "It is to be observed that neither in the Act of 1972 nor in the Order of 1975 is any procedure laid down for the manner in which applications of this nature are to be dealt with, apart from the provisions about entry in the register. This is not a field in which technical rules would be appropriate, there being no contested lis between opposing parties. The planning authority must simply deal with the application procedurally in a way which is just to the applicant in all the circumstances. That being so, there is no good reason why amendment of the application should not be permitted at any stage, if that should prove necessary in order that the whole merits of the application should be properly ascertained and decided upon . . "
1 Citers



 
 Carson v Howard Doris Limited; 1981 - 1981 SC 278

 
 Eastern Marine Services (and Supplies) Ltd v Dickson Motors Ltd; 1981 - 1981 SC 355

 
 Clark Taylor and Company v Quality Site Development (Edinburgh) Limited; 1981 - 1981 SC 111

 
 McCrone v Boots Farm Sales Limited; 1981 - [1981] SLT 103
 
Taylor v Quality Site Development (Edinburgh) Ltd [1981] ScotCS CSIH - 1
8 Jan 1981
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]

 
 Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd; HL 26-Nov-1981 - [1983] 1 WLR 964; [1981] UKHL 12; [1983] 1 All ER 101; 1982 SLT 377
 
Sayers and others v Her Majesty's Advocate [1981] ScotHC HCJAC - 1
27 Nov 1981
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Emerald Stainless Steel v Southside Distribution [1981] ScotCS CSOH - 2
16 Dec 1981
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Clark v Watson 1982 SLT 450
1982

Lord Dunpark
Scotland, Company
Two dentists practised in partnership. The co-partner said that on the death of one, to his estate should be paid "the Capital standing to the credit of the deceased Partner in the Accounts of the Partnership". The court was asked whether that provision would require accounts to be taken as at the date of death. Held: The practice would have to draw up accounts to the date of death, but: "If this conclusion is incorrect and, contrary to my opinion, the phrase "the Accounts of the Partnership" in cl. Fourteenth falls to be construed as meaning inter alia a balance sheet as at 31 March 1977, it nevertheless follows from my opinion that there is nothing in this contract of copartnery to take it outwith the scope of the general rule that the pursuer qua executrix of the deceased is entitled to have the assets entered at their fair value in a fresh balance sheet as at 31 March 1977. This is certainly so if the deceased is not proved to have approved these existing accounts prepared as at 31 March 1977. Although I have heard no debate on what would be the effect of his approval of the accounts, I venture to think that his approval would not bind the pursuer to accept payment in accordance with these accounts. They were prepared upon the assumption that the partnership would continue. The deceased may have agreed to the assets being inserted at a book value in accounts prepared upon that assumption, but I do not, as at present advised, see how the deceased's approval of accounts for that purpose can bind the pursuer to accept that valuation of the assets for the purpose of obtaining payment of the deceased's share of capital on dissolution of the partnership by his death."
1 Citers



 
 Stein v Associated Dairies Ltd; EAT 1982 - [1982] IRLR 447
 
Twomax Ltd v Dickson, McFarlane and Robinson 1982 SC 113; 1983 SLT 98
1982


Professional Negligence, Scotland

1 Citers


 
Beattie v Halliday Unreported 4 February 1982
4 Feb 1982

Lord Justice-Clerk Wheatley
Scotland, Litigation Practice
The court considered a contribution between joint wrongdoers, where the court is concerned with the comparative responsibility of persons who are both liable for the damage. Held: Lord Justice-Clerk Wheatley said: "An appeal court will not lightly interfere with an apportionment fixed by the judge of first instance. It will only do so if it appears that he has manifestly and to a substantial degree gone wrong."
1 Citers


 
Blyth v Scottish Liberal Club [1982] ScotCS CSIH - 1
19 Mar 1982
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Kelly (John Joseph) v Mackinnon [1982] ScotHC HCJAC - 2; 1982 SCCR 205; 1983 SLT 9; 1982 JC 94
11 May 1982
HCJ
Lord Justice-General Emslie
Scotland, Crime

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] AC 520; [1982] 3 WLR 477; [1982] 3 All ER 201; [1982] UKHL 4; [1982] UKHL 12; [1982] Com LR 221; 1982 SC (HL) 244; 1982 SLT 492; 21 BLR 66
15 Jul 1982
HL

Negligence, Construction, Scotland
The defendant was a specialist sub-contractor brought in to lay a floor. In laying the composition floor the defenders used too wet a mixture and applied too thin a top coat and failed to cure the material properly. As a result cracks began to appear in the floor and it started to break up. The floor required replacement and the pursuers contended that while this replacement work was carried out they would lose business and incur irrecoverable overheads. There was no direct contractual relationship between them. Held: Assuming the allegations to be true, there was a sufficiently close relationship between the parties to give rise to a relationship of care, and if proved, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover its financial losses.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Sweeney v X [1982] ScotHC HCJAC - 1
22 Oct 1982
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Kelly v City of Edinburgh District Council [1982] ScotCS CSIH - 2
28 Oct 1982
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Munro v Anderson-Grice Engineering Co Ltd 1983 SLT 295
1983

Lord Grieve
Scotland, Personal Injury, Limitation
An action was raised in 1980 for damages for vibration white finger in which exposure had ceased in 1973. In early 1974 the pursuer had been advised by his solicitors that a claim against the defenders was unlikely to succeed. The pursuer argued that he had acted reasonably by accepting the advice of his solicitor in 1974 and that it was equitable to allow the action to proceed. The defenders argued that there was no explanation why, having decided not to proceed in 1974, the pursuer had raised the action in 1980. Held: The court refused to exercise his discretion in favour of allowing the pursuer to bring the action out of time: "In my opinion however it does not follow that because at some stage within the triennium a pursuer has taken a reasonable course of action which results in a failure to raise an action timeously, that it must be considered equitable to allow him to proceed with an action after the expiry of the three year limitation period. ... No doubt the reasonableness of the pursuer's actings will have a bearing on the equities, but for the latter to be properly considered by the court circumstances beyond those averred by the pursuer in this case are required".
1 Citers



 
 Stevenson v Midlothian District Council; HL 1983 - 1983 SC (HL) 50
 
Whyte v Walker 1983 SLT 441
1983


Scotland, Limitation
The pursuer was injured in a road traffic accident on 8 July 1976 and raised an action on 19 June 1981 alleging that his original solicitors wrote to the defender on two occasions in 1977 claiming damages and that the defender had written on 5 December 1977 to say that the matter was in the hands of his insurers. The insurers stated that they knew nothing of the claim until a letter in May 1980.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
McKenzie v Skeen 1983 SLT 121
1983
HCJ

Crime, Scotland

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 28(2)
1 Citers



 
 Murray v Nicholls; 1983 - 1983 SLT 194

 
 Phestos Shipping Company Limited v Kurmiawan; 1983 - 1983 SLT 388

 
 Thom's Executrix v Russel and Aitken; 1983 - 1983 SLT 335

 
 Wilson v Craig; 1983 - 1983 SLT 556

 
 Grampian Regional Council v Secretary of State for Scotland; CS 1983 - 1984 SC 1 13; (1983) 47 P and CR 540

 
 Buchanan v Tilcon Engineerng Ltd; SCS 1983 - [1983] IRLR 417
 
Thomson v H.M. Advocate [1983] ScotHC HCJ - 1
25 Jul 1983
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

[ Bailii ]
 
Renfrew Golf Club v Ravenstone Securities Ltd [1983] ScotCS CSOH - 3
28 Oct 1983
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Khaliq v HM Advocate [1983] ScotHC HCJ - 2; 1984 JC 23
17 Nov 1983
HCJ

Scotland, Crime
K appealed against his conviction on a libel of culpable and reckless conduct. Held: Lord Justice-General said: ‘There is ample authority for the view that the wilful and reckless administration of a dangerous substance to another causing injury or death, is a crime at common law in Scotland. Examples are to be found in cases such as HM Advocate v Brown and Lawson, HM Advocate v Jean Crawford. In these cases the victims were young children but it does not appear to me that the relevancy of the charges there made depended essentially on the age, state of knowledge, or attitude of the victim. In the passage in Alison, Criminal Law, Vol 1, p 629, dealing with this topic it is not suggested that the criminal character of the administration is affected by the absence of any pretence as to the nature of the substance administered, or by the knowledge of the victim of the properties of the substance administered. The case of HM Advocate v Milne and Barry throws further light upon the problem. In that case a charge libelling the wicked and felonious administration of jalap—a powerful purgative, dangerous when taken in quantity—to an adult to his injury was held to be irrelevant because it was not said to have been administered with criminal intent. The point was that the jalap could have been administered for a good medical reason. Lord Cowan was of opinion that had the charge libelled that the jalap had been administered "wilfully and culpably" it might have amounted to a criminal charge, and it is to be noted that the charge did not libel any pretence nor that the jalap was administered without the knowledge and consent of the victim. Upon the matter of the consent of a victim to conduct causing injury to him, or his death, the law is perfectly clear. Consent on the part of the victim—even instigation by the victim—is of no importance at all. Clear authority is to be found for that proposition in the cases of HM Advocate v Rutherford (murder); Smart v HM Advocate (assault) and Finlayson v HM Advocate (culpable homicide by injection of a controlled drug causing death). In light of what I have said so far I have no doubt whatever that had charge (1) libelled that the appellants had, culpably, wilfully and recklessly, held the containers supplied to the noses of the children to enable them to inhale the vapours of the solvents to their injury, the relevancy of such a charge, bearing in mind the state of knowledge attributed to the appellants, would be beyond question. I go further and say that the relevancy of such a charge would not have been impaired had the alleged consenting victims of the alleged conduct of the accused been of full age. It is nothing to the point either that the victims might, without committing any criminal offence, have inflicted the same injury upon themselves, for the question is simply whether the accused has, by wilful and reckless conduct on his part, caused real injury to a third party.’
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Winnick v Dick [1983] ScotCS CSIH - 1
22 Nov 1983
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Winnik v Dick 1984 SLT 185
1984

Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Wheatley
Scotland, Road Traffic, Negligence
The respondent, was a passenger in a motor car who was injured in an accident. He raised an action of damages against the driver, the appellant, who had been convicted of an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1972. The men had been drinking together in public houses for most of the day and when the respondent entered the appellant's car to return home, he knew that the appellant was drunk. The appellant contended that he was not liable in damages to the respondent inter alia because the respondent had voluntarily accepted the risk of an accident. Held: After reviewing the Scotish cases: including McCaig v Langan and Fowler v Tierney: "From these expressions of view as to what is involved in the maxim so far as the law of Scotland is concerned, I can find no support for, but rather refutation of, the contention that its effect here is to establish that on this journey there never was any duty on the defender as the driver of the car to take reasonable care quoad the pursuer [...]. In my opinion the effect of the maxim was not to relieve the defender from any duty to take care quoad his passengers. On the contrary the maxim proceeds on the basis that there is duty to take care and not be negligent, but the successful establishment of the maxim means that the pursuer has accepted the risk of the defender's negligence in the exercise of his legal duties and has absolved the defender from the consequences arising from that negligence."
1 Citers


 
Singer v Gray Tool Co (Europe) Ltd 1984 SLT 149. F
1984


Scotland, Litigation Practice

1 Citers


 
Grampian Regional Council v City of Aberdeen District Council (1984) 47 PandCR 633; [1984] JPL 371
1984


Planning, Scotland
The extinguishment of a private right is not a proper matter for a condition attached to a planning permission, even though a negative condition preventing development until a highway has been stopped up is unobjectionable.
1 Citers


 
Lord Binning, Petitioner 1984 SLT 18
1984


Scotland, Land

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Burns v Secretary of State for Social Services [1984] ScotCS CSIH - 2
6 Dec 1984
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.