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: 1991 To: 1991
This page lists 25 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Visionhire Ltd v Britel Fund Trustees Ltd 1991 SLT
1991
Scotland, Land
1 Citers
Cameron v HM Advocate 1991 JC 252
1991
Scotland, Criminal Practice
1 Citers
HM Advocate v Mechan [1991] CLY 4657
1991
Scotland, Criminal Practice
1 Citers
Swankie v H M Advocate; 1991 - (1999) SCCR 1
Bain v Hugh LS McConnell Ltd 1991 SLT 691
1991
Scotland, Litigation Practice
The court discussed procedures to correct fundamental miscarriages of justice.
1 Citers
J T A K v H M Advocate 1991 SCCR 343
1991
Scotland, Crime
1 Citers
Farmer v HM Advocate 1991 SCCR 986
1991
Criminal Practice, Scotland
The judge warned the jury of the dangers in assessing evidence: "The task of assessment is not an easy one: it is certainly one which has to be approached with great care and circumspection."
1 Citers
Pringle, Petitioner 1991 SLT 330
1991
Scotland
A case was brought to challenge legislation which introduced the community charge in Scotland before it was introduced in England. Held: The First Division of the Court of Session reserved its position on the effect of the Treaty of Union.
1 Citers
Clements v HM Advocate 1991 JC 62; 1991 SLT 388
1991
Lord Justice General Hope
Crime, Scotland
An offence charged was a contravention of the 1971 Act. Observing that the criminal enterprise with which the appellants were concerned was the whole network or chain of supply, right up to the end of the chain where the harmful effects were to be felt, the court. Held: "The underlying mischief at which these provisions are directed is the supply or offer to supply of a controlled drug to another, and to look to the place of the mischief as the place where jurisdiction can be established against all those involved would be consistent with the idea that the courts of the place where the harmful acts occur may exercise jurisdiction over those whose acts elsewhere have those consequences: see Lord Diplock's discussion of this point in R v Treacy [1971] AC 537, 562. This is not to say that the courts in other parts of the United Kingdom might not also have jurisdiction in an appropriate case. But, as Lord Diplock pointed out, the risk of double jeopardy is avoided by the common law doctrines in bar of trial, in England, of autrefois convict and, in Scotland, that the accused has tholed his assize.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 4(30(b)
1 Citers
O'Brien's Curator Bonis v British Steel Plc 1991 SC 315
1991
Scotland, Damages
The court can take judicial notice of the Ogden Tables.
1 Citers
Russell v Russell 1991 SCLR 429
1991
Sherriff Gordon
Scotland, Children
1 Cites
1 Citers
Williams v Fraser 1991 SCLR 307
1991
Scotland
1 Citers
Chapman v Aberdeen Construction Group [1991] IRLR 505
1991
Lord Caplan
Contract, Employment, Scotland
It having been conceded that contracts of service fell within section 15 of the 1977 Act, the court found that the question whether the contract was a consumer contract depended on the circumstances. Though the employee pursuer was to be regarded as a consumer in relation to his contract of employment with the defenders, the term consumer may not sit comfortably on an employee in relation to his work.
Unfair Contract terms Act 1977 15
1 Citers
Porter v Strathclyde Regional Council 1991 SLT 446
1991
Scotland, Negligence
The Inner House should not interfere with the Lord Ordinary's apportionment of negligence except in exceptional circumstances which must demonstrate that "he has manifestly and to a substantial degree gone wrong".
1 Citers
Young v McGlennan; 1991 - 1991 SCCR 738
Ulhaq v HM Advocate 1991 SLT 614
1991
HCJ
Crime, Scotland
1 Citers
Re M (Minors); CA 17-Jan-1991 - [1991] EWCA Civ 14; [1992] 1 FCR 201; [1992] 2 FLR 382
Lothian Rc v Rennie [1991] ScotCS CSIH - 1
1 Mar 1991
SCS
Scotland
[ Bailii ]
Weir (Charles) v Jessop (No.2) [1991] ScotHC HCJAC - 1
20 Mar 1991
HCJ
Scotland, Crime
[ Bailii ]
Neilson v Stewart [1991] UKHL 13; 1991 SC (HL) 22; 1991 SLT 523; [1991] BCC 713
21 Mar 1991
HL
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Scotland, Contract, Company
The parties disputed whether a completed agreement existed between them. Held: Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: "The fact that in the usual case a particular term will be considered essential to the existence of a concluded agreement does not prevent parties from contracting in a peculiar case that it shall not be essential."
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Dornier Gmbh v Cannon [1991] ScotCS CSIH - 2
16 Apr 1991
SCS
Scotland
[ Bailii ]
Davenport v Corinthian Motor Policies [1991] ScotCS CSIH - 3
24 May 1991
SCS
Scotland
[ Bailii ]
Ross v HM Advocate 1991 SLT 564; [1991] ScotHC HCJAC - 2
12 Jul 1991
HCJ
Lord Hope, Lord Allanbridge, Lord Weir, Lord Brand
Scotland, Crime
The defendant faced charges of attempted murder, malicious damage and aggravated assault. He had been drinking lager beer from a can. Unknown to him, someone else put temazepam and LSD in the drink. He began to scream and to lunge about him with a knife, injuring passers by. He had to be taken to hospital and given an antidote to be brought under control. He argued at trial that the effect of the these drugs was to deprive him of his self control and his mens rea. The trial judge had felt bound by Cunningham and rejected the argument. Held: The accused committed the acts whilst suffering non-insane automatism. He was not conscious of what he was doing. The exclusion of the medical evidence was incorrect and that the conviction should be quashed.
Lord Hope said: "The discussion in Lord Justice-General Clyde's opinion [in Cunningham] . . is directed principally to the question whether the categories of special defences should be extended to include what he saw as a new one which, although short of insanity, would lead to an acquittal. There is no discussion of the principle that mens rea is a necessary ingredient of any crime. The whole approach seems to be one directed to grounds of public policy. It is said that to allow such a novel type of defence could lead to serious consequences so far as the safety of the public is concerned, and Lord Murray's approach is criticised on the ground that 'To affirm or even extend that decision would lead to laxity and confusion in our criminal law which could do nothing but harm'. In my opinion these strictures are not justified in cases where the defence is based, as it was in Ritchie, on an inability to form mens rea due to some external factor which was outwith the accused's control and which he was not bound to foresee. I do not see why laxity or confusion should result if we were to recognise that, where the point is sufficiently put in issue, an accused should be acquitted if the jury are not satisfied that the Crown has proved mens rea. That would be entirely consistent with the principle that the onus rests throughout on the Crown. The requirements that the external factor must not be self induced, that it must be one which the accused was not bound to foresee, and that it must have resulted in a total alienation of reason amounting to a complete absence of self control, provide adequate safeguards against abuse."
Lord Allanbridge said: "In the present case the appellant alleged that unknown to him his can of lager had temazepam and a quantity of LSD squeezed into it with the result that he was deprived of his self control to such an extent that he was incapable of mens rea. If this in fact was the effect of the drugs and he was in such a mental condition that he was unable to form any intent - be it good or evil - then clearly he could not have the necessary mens rea to be guilty of a criminal offence.
In such a situation I agree that the case of Cunningham, along with the following cases of Clark and Carmichael, should now be overruled in so far as they conflict with the view that an accused will not have the necessary mens rea if his mind is so affected by a non-self-induced and unforeseeable factor that the result is a total loss of control over his actions which have led to the alleged crime charged being committed."
Lord Weir said: "In recognising the existence of a category of defence of the kind which we have been considering, it is important, in my view, to recognise the strict limits within which such a defence can be said to have validity. I agree that the necessary conditions are that at the time in question the accused must have been suffering from a total alienation of reason rendering him incapable of controlling or appreciating what he was doing, that such alienation was caused by an external factor and that this factor was neither self induced nor one which he was bound to foresee. Anything short of this will not suffice and in the absence of evidence from which the necessary conclusion can be drawn it will be for the judge to direct the jury that such a defence is not open for consideration by them."
Lord Brand said: "I agree with the opinion of your Lordship in the chair. I agree, in particular, with your Lordship's statement that 'A verdict of acquittal would be an appropriate verdict if the jury are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the accused's ability to form the intention to commit the crime with which he is charged.'"
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Rodenhurst v Chief Constable of Grampian [1991] ScotCS CSIH - 5
2 Aug 1991
SCS
Scotland
[ Bailii ]
Zemhunt v Control Securities [1991] ScotCS CSIH - 6
30 Oct 1991
SCS
Scotland
[ Bailii ]
