Skip to content

swarb.co.uk

May the law be with you – lex vobiscum

  • Law
    • More Recent Cases
    • e-Legal Gathering
    • Case Layout
    • FAQ
    • Searching
    • Areas of Law
    • law index
    • Courts
    • Reports
    • Judges
    • Case Names
  • Privacy
    • GDPR – Overall
    • Anonymity Orders
    • GDPR – Request to be ‘Forgotten’
    • Privacy – Users
    • GDPR – Content
    • GDPR – Legitimate Interests
    • Lawfulness of processing
    • Purposes Limitation
    • Cookie Policy
    • GDPR -Accuracy
    • GDPR – Resources
    • California Consumer Privacy Act
  • About
    • What we do
    • Contact
    • Development
  • Advertising
    • Advertising
    • Donate
    • Statistics
  • Registration

Renton v Riddell and Another: SCS 18 Apr 2002

[2002] ScotCS 112
Bailii
Scotland

Updated: 17 October 2021; Ref: scu.175420

Posted on October 17, 2021October 17, 2021 by adminPosted in Scotland

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Ferris v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Jun 2020
Next Next post: Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: Admn 20 Jun 2008

Areas of Law:

  • Administrative (1,118)
  • Adoption (461)
  • Agency (620)
  • Agriculture (773)
  • Animals (305)
  • Arbitration (1,262)
  • Armed Forces (358)
  • Banking (1,416)
  • Benefits (3,521)
  • Capital Gains Tax (486)
  • Charity (383)
  • Child Support (309)
  • Children (5,385)
  • Civil Procedure Rules (319)
  • Commercial (1,414)
  • Commonwealth (3,082)
  • Company (3,018)
  • Constitutional (945)
  • Construction (1,172)
  • Consumer (739)
  • Contempt of Court (850)
  • Contract (6,114)
  • Coroners (421)
  • Corporation Tax (680)
  • Costs (3,551)
  • Crime (8,398)
  • Criminal Evidence (633)
  • Criminal Practice (3,315)
  • Criminal Sentencing (2,865)
  • Customs and Excise (1,686)
  • Damages (2,484)
  • Defamation (1,543)
  • Development (1)
  • Discrimination (2,629)
  • Ecclesiastical (307)
  • Education (1,063)
  • Elections (224)
  • Employment (12,725)
  • Environment (820)
  • Equity (961)
  • Estoppel (334)
  • European (12,959)
  • Evidence (517)
  • Extradition (1,589)
  • Family (2,883)
  • Financial Services (1,014)
  • Health (1,521)
  • Health and Safety (459)
  • Health Professions (1,928)
  • Housing (1,997)
  • Human Rights (19,661)
  • Immigration (56,353)
  • Income Tax (3,224)
  • Information (15,624)
  • Inheritance Tax (178)
  • Insolvency (3,044)
  • Insurance (1,249)
  • Intellectual Property (13,533)
  • International (956)
  • Ireland (18)
  • Judicial Review (584)
  • Jurisdiction (1,046)
  • Jury (1,775)
  • Land (5,294)
  • Landlord and Tenant (15,656)
  • Legal Aid (391)
  • Legal Professions (1,956)
  • Licensing (594)
  • Limitation (1,065)
  • Litigation Practice (7,051)
  • Local Government (1,628)
  • Magistrates (758)
  • Media (1,141)
  • Natural Justice (322)
  • Negligence (1,336)
  • News (49)
  • Northern Ireland (1,757)
  • Nuisance (460)
  • Personal Injury (2,904)
  • Planning (3,239)
  • Police (1,545)
  • Prisons (1,248)
  • Professional Negligence (1,618)
  • Rating (670)
  • Registered Land (823)
  • Road Traffic (1,211)
  • Scotland (16,745)
  • Stamp Duty (187)
  • Taxes – Other (2,256)
  • Taxes Management (1,381)
  • Torts – Other (2,759)
  • Transport (2,048)
  • Trusts (1,473)
  • Undue Influence (152)
  • Utilities (477)
  • VAT (5,534)
  • Vicarious Liability (248)
  • Wales (16)
  • Wills and Probate (1,781)

Recent Posts

  • Anderson v Laverock: HCJ 18 Dec 1975
  • The Bank of Van Diemen’s Land v The Bank of Victoria: 27 Jan 1871
  • Crane v The London Dock Company: 28 Apr 1864
  • The Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London, and China v Thomas Dickson And Christopher Tatham, Lately Trading As Dickson, Tatham And Co: 28 Jan 1871
  • Ricket v The Metropolitan Railway Company: 22 Apr 1864
  • Regina, On The Prosecution of G Romaine, v The Inhabitants Of East Stoke: 9 May 1865
  • The Attorney-General, At The Relation Of Joseph Greenhill v Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge; Trinity College, Oxford, And Frederick Greenhill: 4 May 1865
  • Gee v Liddell: 4 Jun 1866
  • Smith v Jane Georgiana O’Grady, Eliza Ann Shannon, Bonella Maria Marchant, John Marchant, And John Chambers Mahon: PC 7 Jul 1870
  • Dirk Gysbert Van Breda v Johan Conrad Silberbauer: 11 Dec 1869
  • Regina v Townsend: 1866
  • Mussumat Thukrain Sookraj Koowar v Government, Baboo Ajeet Sing, And Others: PC 3 Jul 1871
  • Greaves and Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle and Partners: CA 1975
  • Galloway v The Mayor, Commonalty And Citizens of London: HL 29 Jun 1865
  • Snooks and Dowse v United Kingdom: ECHR 2002
  • Forsikringsaktieselskabet National (of Copenhagen) v Attorney-General: HL 1925
  • Appendix: HL 1870
  • Regina v Tucker: CACD 2006
  • Cattermole v Prisk: 2006
  • Simpson v Eggington: 9 Feb 1855
  • Mark: CAMARO: TMR 1 May 1998
  • Sun and Sand Ltd v Fitzjohn: 1979
  • In re Lloyd; Lloyd v Lloyd: CA 1903
  • Practice Statement (House of Lords: Appearance of counsel) in the House of Lords: HL 22 May 2008
  • Corbyn v Saunders: 1978
  • Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation: 1933
  • Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd: 1989
  • Barker v Herbert: CA 1911
  • Holmes v Cowcher: ChD 1970
  • Finlan v Winfield: ChD 2007
  • Anderson v New York Telephone Co: 1974
  • Aladesuru v The Queen: PC 1956
  • Green v Green: 1981
  • Jacques v Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers: 1986
  • Rochdale Canal Company v King: 1853
  • Banque des Marchands de Moscou (Koupetschesky) v Kindersley: CA 1951
  • Poole Corporation v Moody: CA 1945
  • Juncal, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others: CA 25 Jul 2008
  • The Owners of the “P. Caland” and Freight v Glamorgan Steamship Co Ltd: HL 1893
  • Rex v Royce: CCR 1767
  • Mark: MISCELLANEOUS ONLY: TMR 23 Mar 2004
  • Mark: DEVICE ONLY MARK: TMR 6 Oct 2003
  • Mark: TOP LOCK SILENT: TMR 30 Nov 2004
  • Mark: NET BENEFIT: TMR 1 May 1998
  • Mark: TEGO TOP SHOP: TMR 1 May 1998
  • Practice Direction: Court Bundles (Universal Practice to be Applied in All Courts other than the Family Proceedings Court): FD 2006
  • HM Advocate v Kidd: 1960
  • Morelle Ltd v Waterworth: CA 1955
  • SOFT TOUCH: TMR 30 Dec 1899
  • The King v Mitchell: 1913

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
swarb.co.uk is published by David Swarbrick of 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. Tel: 0795 457 9992, 01484 380326 or email at david@swarb.co.uk

IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. We do not provide advice. Before making any decision, you must read the full case report and take professional advice as appropriate. Only full case reports are accepted in court.

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Colinear by Automattic.