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: 1992 To: 1992

This page lists 17 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.


 
 Breslin v Britoil plc; 1992 - 1992 SLT 414.
 
Wilson v Nithsdale District Council [1992] SLT 1131
1992

Lord Prosser
Housing, Scotland
An eighteen year old girl had been sexually assaulted, was unable to return home, had been expelled from a hostel for suspected theft and was said to be at risk of further sexual assault if not provided with suitable accommodation. She sought housing as a vulnerable person. Held: The court pointed out the dangers of a comparative approach in extablishing vulnerability: "The 'comparative' approach to vulnerability adopted in these cases cannot in my view be pushed to its logical limit; the intention cannot be that every homeless person will be held vulnerable for special reason merely because one other such homeless person might by comparison seem less vulnerable. The comparison must in my view be with some assumed average or normal run-of-the-mill homeless person. But if there is a lesser ability to fend for oneself, against that comparison, in a housing context, so that injury or detriment would result when such an ordinary homeless person would be able to cope without harmful effects, then in my opinion vulnerability for special reason is established for the purpose of the Act, and nothing more special (far less anything odd or exceptional) is required."
1 Citers


 
Farleyer Estates v Secretary of State for Scotland [1992] 2PLR 123
1992
IHCS

Planning, Scotland
An Enforcement Notice alleged unauthorised use of land as a timber storage and transfer area. The land so used was 1500 metres from forestry plantations. The appellant argued that it was concerned with “the use of land for the purposes of forestry” and that therefore development was not involved. This was rejected by the reporter on the grounds that the land against which the Enforcement Notice was directed was so physically divorced from the forest that he could not regard it as “an operation or use ancillary to forestry and I consider it rather to be a use of industrial character”. Held: “The cultivating of forests and the management of growing timber would include the felling of trees and the extraction of the timber from plantations. There would be little point in cultivating or managing forests unless the fruits of the operation in the sense of the felled timber were to be taken away from the plantation for commercial purposes. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the extraction of timber is included in the general term forestry. . . . In the light of the findings which the reporter has made in the present case, it is plain that, if timber were to be extracted from these plantations, there was no alternative to the movement of timber on the road through the village and that the use of the subjects described in the Enforcement Notice for stock piling timber extracted from the forest and transferring it onto the lorries was functionally essential to the running of these plantations commercially. That being so, we are satisfied that at the material time the subjects referred to in the Enforcement Notice were being used for the purposes of forestry. ........ In our opinion it does not matter that the subject s referred to in the Enforcement Notice were situated some 1500 metres from the plantations; what is important is not the fact that the subjects were physically divorced from the plantation but the use to which the subjects were being put."
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972
1 Citers


 
North East Fife District Council v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SLT 373
1992

Lord President Hope
Scotland, Planning
The court was asked as to the standing of the applicants to make their application. Lord President Hope said: "But in my opinion the fact that all three appellants were present at, and made representations at the public inquiry is sufficient for them to be persons 'aggrieved' . . they were entitled to expect that the Secretary of State, in considering their representations, would act within the powers conferred upon him by the statute and . . they are entitled to appeal against his decision on the ground that he has not done so."
1 Citers


 
West v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385
1992
SCS
Lord President (Hope)
Scotland, Administrative
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 to enquire whether the decision of the inferior body or tribunal is administrative in character. The essential point is that a decision-making function has been entrusted to that body or tribunal which it can be compelled by the court to perform. As counsel for the respondent pointed out, the tripartite relationship in these arrangements is significant. The essential feature of all these cases is the conferring, whether by statute or private contract, of a decision-making power or duty on a third party to whom the taking of the decision is entrusted but whose manner of decision-making may be controlled by the court."
The competency of an application to the supervisory jurisdiction "does not depend upon any distinction between public law and private law, nor is it confined to those cases which English law has accepted as amenable to judicial review...".
1 Citers


 
McFadyen v Annan [1992] JC 53; [1992] CLY 5466; 1992 SLT 163
1992


Scotland, Criminal Practice
The accused, a police officer, was subject of a complaint by the person arrested of assault. The defendant complained that the delay in bringing charges (7 months) was excessive so as to be unfair. Held: The question should be whether the delay would so prejudice the prospects of a fair trial to the extent that any such trial would be oppressive. A former, two stage, test was no longer to be followed. Delay before as well as after proceedings were begun could be looked at. In this case there was no such risk of prejudice from any delay.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Sokha v Secretary of State for the Home Department 1992 SLT 1049
1992
SCS
Lord Ordinary (Prosser)
Immigration, Scotland
Mr Sokha had entered and remained in England illegally. He was found and detained in prison in England by the authority of an immigration officer. He began initiated proceedings in the Court of Session for judicial review of the decision to detain him in prison, believing that he had a better prospect of obtaining conditional release from a Scottish court than an English court. The Secretary of State had accepted that the Scottish court had jurisdiction. Held: The court dismissed the petition. The Scottish courts were a wholly inappropriate forum, and the English courts were the obvious and natural forum, for any scrutiny of the decisions to detain the petitioner and keep him in detention.
1 Citers


 
Wallis v Wallis 1992 SC 455
1992
SCS

Scotland, Family
The effect of section 10(3)(b) of the 1985 Act was that the whole of the wife's share of the increase in its value after the date of separation which passed to the husband as a result of the sheriff's order had to be left out of account in the computation of the amount of the matrimonial property that determined how much of it was to be paid by him to the wife.
Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985
1 Citers


 
Campbell v The United Kingdom 13590/88; (1992) 15 EHRR 137; [1992] ECHR 41
25 Mar 1992
ECHR

Human Rights, Prisons, Scotland
The applicant complained about the compatibility with the European Convention of the Prisons rule 74(4) which provided that "every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor . . and it shall be within the discretion of the Governor to stop any letter if he considers that the contents are objectionable." Held: The interference with the applicant's correspondence violated article 8. "Admittedly, as the Government pointed out, the borderline between mail concerning contemplated litigation and that of a general nature is especially difficult to draw and correspondence with a lawyer may concern matters which have little or nothing to do with litigation. Nevertheless, the Court sees no reason to distinguish between the different categories of correspondence with lawyers which, whatever their purpose, concern matters of a private and confidential character. In principle, such letters are privileged under Article 8. This means that the prison authorities may open a letter from a lawyer to a prisoner when they have reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure which the normal means of detection have failed to disclose. The letter should, however, only be opened and should not be read. Suitable guarantees preventing the reading of the letter should be provided, eg opening the letter in the presence of the prisoner. The reading of a prisoner's mail to and from a lawyer, on the other hand, should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances when the authorities have reasonable cause to believe that the privilege is being abused in that the contents of the letter endanger prison security or the safety of others or are otherwise of a criminal nature. What may be regarded as 'reasonable cause' will depend on all the circumstances but it presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the privileged channel of communication was being abused."
Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 (SI 1952/565) 74(4) - European Convention on Human Rights 8
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Solicitors Estate Agency (Glasgow) Ltd v Maciver [1992] ScotCS CSIH - 1
27 Mar 1992
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
West v Secretary of State for Scotland [1992] ScotCS CSIH - 3; 1992 SCLR 504; 1992 SLT 636; 1992 SC 385
23 Apr 1992
SCS
Lord Weir
Scotland, Employment
The petitioner complained that on being moved from his employment at one prison to another, he had been told that his moving expenses would be paid, but that they were not. The respondent said that the terms of his employment were that he was to be mobile, and that as a Crown employee his terms of employment were variable at the instance of the crown. Held: Wherever there is an excess or abuse of the power or jurisdiction which has been conferred on a decision-maker, the Court of Session has the power to correct it.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Mitchell v Mitchell [1992] ScotCS CSIH - 2
23 Apr 1992
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]

 
 Guild v Inland Revenue Commissioners; HL 6-May-1992 - Gazette, 06 May 1992; [1990] UKHL 10; [1992] 2 AC 310; [1992] UKHL 16; [1993] Imm AR 112; [1992] 1 WLR 1052; [1992] 4 All ER 673
 
Salvesen's Trustees [1992] ScotCS CSIH - 4
28 May 1992
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Kyle v P and J Stormonth Darling [1992] ScotCS CSIH - 6
19 Aug 1992
SCS

Scotland

[ Bailii ]
 
Lord Advocate's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1992] ScotHC HCJ - 1
23 Oct 1992
HCJ

Scotland, Crime

1 Cites

[ Bailii ]
 
Barratt Scotland Ltd v Keith [1992] ScotCS CSIH - 5
10 Dec 1992
SCS

Scotland

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