Tag: Scotland

Carse v Coppen: IHCS 8 Dec 1950

The court considered the inability to create a floating charge over a company’s assets in Scots law. It was conceded that a company registered in Scotland could not create a valid and effectual floating charge over its assets in Scotland, but it was contended that it had done so over its assets in England. This argument was rejected. Lord President Cooper said that a floating charge was utterly repugnant to the principles of Scots law, which did not recognise it as creating a security at all. The reforms in the law which had been effected because of the many criticisms that had been directed against the injustices capable of being inflicted on the trade creditors by the use of floating charges had been expressly confined to companies registered in England. It was unthinkable that this could have been done except upon the view that companies registered in Scotland and subject to Scots law could not create floating charges.

Judges:

Lord President Cooper

Citations:

1951 SC 233, [1950] ScotCS CSIH – 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited and others HL 30-Jun-2005
Former HL decision in Siebe Gorman overruled
The company had become insolvent. The bank had a debenture and claimed that its charge over the book debts had become a fixed charge. The preferential creditors said that the charge was a floating charge and that they took priority.
Held: The . .
Cited – Sharp and Others v Woolwich Building Society HL 6-Feb-1997
The House was asked: what is meant by the word property in a floating charge and in section 53(7) of the 1986 Act which provides for the effect of the appointment of a receiver by the holder of such a charge in the following terms: ‘(7) On the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking

Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.228297

Special Case Hill: SCS 21 Dec 1872

A testator bequeathed the interest of pounds 6000 to his brother a until the youngest son of another brother should attain majority. A died, and was survived by a widow and an only son b, who died in pupilarity. Held, in a question between (1) b’s heir-at-law and executor-dative, and (2) his mother, that the accruing interest was part of the moveable estate of b, and that his mother was entitled to one-third of the interest.

Citations:

[1872] SLR 10 – 164

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Wills and Probate

Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.576399

Dame Robina Pollock or Crawford v Mary Lockhart, Relict of John Lockhart of Lee: HL 10 Mar 1779

Where an English trust was created of estate in England, vested in English trustees in the English form; but for the benefit of parties natives of Scotland; and the trust fund having not been put to the uses mentioned; but transferred by the trustee to the first party beneficially called to succeed. Forty years after the present action was raised by the Scotch party, deprived of the benefit. Held, in the Court of Session, that the Scotch law of negative prescription, and not the English law, fell to be applied, and that the right of the parties favoured by the trust was cut off by the negative prescription.

Citations:

[1779] UKHL 2 – Paton – 495

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Trusts

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.562032

Alexander Gray, WS v Messrs Douglas, Heron, and Co, Late Bankers In Ayr, and George Home, Esq, Factor for The Partners of The Said Company: HL 10 Feb 1779

The appellant was an original partner of Douglas, Heron, and Co. He was of the committee named by the subscribers for regulating their plan of operations, and was present, either personally, or by proxy, at seven of the nine general meetings of the partners, which were held during the subsistence of the Company, as a banking society. He was, therefore, it was stated, in the full knowledge of the Company’s transactions. The Company having become insolvent in June 1772, the question for determination was, Whether the appellant, in these circumstances, could decline paying his share, along with the other partners, of the money which it was necessary for each partner to contribute, in order to pay the debts of the Company?
The appellant had only paid up pounds 200 of his subscribed capital of pounds 500; and the present action was raised against him for the pounds 300, and for an additional call of pounds 200 to pay off the debts.
Held the appellant liable to contribute his proportional share of the debt owing by the Company, he being a partner of the Company.

Citations:

[1779] UKHL 6 – Paton – 800

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Company

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.562031

John Alston, Alexander Elliot, William Colquhoun, and Others v Messrs Colin Campbell and Co, Merchants In Greenock, and John M’Allister: HL 3 Mar 1779

A party sold a vessel to his creditor, under a vendition ex facie absolute, but, as shewn by the correspondence, was intended as a security for his debt. He thereafter insured the vessel. Held, on her loss, that he had still an insurable interest,-the sale being merely in security.

Citations:

[1779] UKHL 2 – Paton – 492

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Transport

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.562033

Rev Mr Thomas Tait v Mr George Skene Keith, Minister, and Others: HL 30 Mar 1778

Patron – Competing Presentations – Mandant’s Powers – Implied Recal.-
Where a patron, residing in a foreign country, had appointed commissioners, with powers to present to vacant churches, the latter presented a party a day before the patron himself presented another party: Held, the presentation by the commissioners, in virtue of the powers delegated to them, was good, and to be preferred to the patron’s own presentation, and that the right of patronage may be exercised by delegates so appointed.

Citations:

[1778] UKHL 2 – Paton – 447

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Ecclesiastical

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.562021

George Haldane, Esq of Gleneagles v George Late Earl Marischall: HL 26 Mar 1778

An appeal to the House of Lords is incompetent, from a sentence of the Court of Exchequer acting ministerially as a Board of Treasury, under the special directions of an Act of Parliament.

Citations:

[1778] UKHL 2 – Paton – 443

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Jurisdiction

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.562020

Uprichard v Fife Council: SIC 21 Nov 2005

Request for information relating to a planning application made to Fife Council – Failure of Fife Council to respond to an information request and subsequent request for review within the statutory timescales set out in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 049 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002

Cited by:

See Also – Uprichard v Fife Council SIC 15-Aug-2006
Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – personal information section 38(1)(b) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Information, Planning

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434784

Mclean, Chief Executive of Argyll Group Plc and Caledonian MacBrayne Limited: SIC 22 Nov 2005

Refusal to provide a copy of the general arrangement plans of the MV Bute
Request for plans of a ferry currently in service – health and safety – section 39 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) – whether release would prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person – section 33 of FOISA – consideration of the public interest

Citations:

[2005] ScotIC 055 – 2005

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434786

Lochhead MSP and Scottish Executive: SIC 15 Nov 2006

Discussions on impact of EU Constitution – Mr Lochhead requested from the Scottish Executive (the Executive) copies of all correspondence regarding discussions between the Executive and the UK Government regarding the EU Constitution and its potential impact in Scotland.
The Executive refused Mr Lochhead’s request, initially citing 9 exemptions. Following Mr Lochhead’s application to the Commissioner, the Executive also informed the Commissioner that it believed it was entitled to refuse the request under section 12(1) of FOISA (Excessive cost of compliance).
The Commissioner found that the Executive acted in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA in refusing to respond to Mr Lochhead’s information request, in that section 12(1) of FOISA constituted appropriate grounds for refusal in the circumstances of the case.

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 204 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434702

Uprichard v Fife Council: SIC 15 Aug 2006

Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – Correspondence submitted in consultation on proposed upgrade of Lade Braes to multi-user path status – personal information section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA)

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 153 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 38(1)(b)

Citing:

See Also – Uprichard v Fife Council SIC 21-Nov-2005
Request for information relating to a planning application made to Fife Council – Failure of Fife Council to respond to an information request and subsequent request for review within the statutory timescales set out in the Freedom of Information . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434660

Carberry and Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police: SIC 15 Nov 2006

Postcode-based information about the location of registered sex offenders – Request for information about the location of registered sex offenders based on the first four characters of a postcode and their housing tenure – some information not held (section 17) – section 12(1) excessive cost of compliance

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 206 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434701

Blane and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 15 Nov 2006

Information relating to work related sick leave in Scottish Borders Council – failure to respond to the request in line with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 – whether the information requested is held

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 207 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434705

Rob Edwards and Scottish Ministers: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges – Mr Edwards made two requests to the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) for information relating to the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges. The Ministers responded by providing Mr Edwards with some of the information falling within the scope of his requests. However, the Ministers withheld certain documentation under various exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, Mr Edwards remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Ministers notified the Commissioner that on further consideration of the requests, they now considered that the costs of compliance with each request would exceed andpound;600 (and therefore that they were not obliged to comply with the requests in terms of section 12(1) of FOISA). The Ministers subsequently provided the Commissioner with an estimate of the projected costs of compliance.
As a result of the investigation, the Commissioner found that the projected costs of compliance in each case would exceed andpound;600 and that the Ministers were not required to respond to the requests.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 154 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434261

Loveday’s and Scottish Borders Council: SIC 8 Dec 2008

SIC Failure to respond to a request for information within the required timescales and failure to respond to a request for review.
This decision considers whether Scottish Borders Council (the Council) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request made by Loveday’s. Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to comply with the timescales specified in sections 10(1) and 21(1) of FOISA.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 153 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434255

W and Scottish Court Service: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Regulations, Rules of Court and procedures – Mr W requested from the Scottish Court Service (SCS) copies of regulations and rules of court, along with advice regarding a particular case. The SCS responded by providing a copy of the requested regulations, while declining to provide advice. Following a review, during which Mr W was informed under section 17 of FOISA that information was not held, Mr W remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the SCS also claimed some of the information to be exempt in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA, the Commissioner found that the information requested was either not held or exempt in terms of section 25(1) of FOISA in that it was otherwise accessible to the applicant.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 150 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434262

Councillor Danny Carrigan and Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board: SIC 8 Dec 2008

Addresses and sales dates of specific properties – Councillor Danny Carrigan (Councillor Carrigan) requested from the Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board (the Board) the exact addresses and sales dates of the three properties whose selling price had been used to determine the council tax banding of a property inhabited by one of his constituents. The Board responded by advising Councillor Carrigan that it considered the information exempt from disclosure in terms of section 25(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). Following a review, Councillor Carrigan remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Board had dealt with Councillor Carrigan’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by correctly applying the exemption in section 25(1) of FOISA to the withheld information. He did not require the Board to take any action.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 151 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434253

Capacity Building Project and City of Edinburgh Council: SIC 8 Dec 2008

SIC Investigation into complaints against the Capacity Building Project – Summary – The Capacity Building Project (the Project) requested from the City of Edinburgh Council (the Council) copies of original letters of complaint, a list of individuals interviewed in the course of an investigation conducted by the Council and the transcripts of interviews conducted as part of the investigation. The Council responded by providing the Project with redacted versions of the complaint letters, where it has withheld information in terms of section 36(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA). The Council also withheld the list of interviewees and the transcripts of those interviews in terms of sections 36(2), 35(1)(g) and 35(2)(b) of FOISA. Following a review, the Council also applied the exemption in section 38(1)(b) to the information withheld. The Project remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with the Project’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA because all of the information withheld was exempt from disclosure. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2008] ScotIC 152 – 2008

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434252

X and Scottish Court Service: SIC 12 Jan 2009

Solemn criminal appeals – Mr X requested from the Scottish Court Service (the SCS) information relating to solemn criminal appeals. The SCS responded by confirming that the information requested by Mr X was not held. Following a review, as a result of which the SCS retracted its assertion that the information was not held, Mr X was provided with the information the SCS believed at the time fell within the scope of his request. Mr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
During the investigation, the Commissioner was notified that on further consideration the SCS now took the view that the information provided to Mr X represented only part of the request. However, the SCS also submitted, with supporting calculations, that the cost of full compliance would exceed andpound;600. As a result of the investigation, the Commissioner accepted that the cost of compliance in this case would exceed andpound;600 and consequently that (by virtue of section 12(1) of FOISA) the SCS was not obliged to comply with the request. He also found, however, that the SCS had failed to provide Mr X with adequate advice and assistance in responding to his request.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 002 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433954

Croisdain Mackenzie and Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar: SIC 2 Apr 2009

SIC Mr Croisdain MacKenzie (Mr MacKenzie) requested from Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council) a specified Opinion of Senior Counsel and related information. The Council provided some information, but withheld the Opinion and a summary of it in terms of section 36(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), on the basis that these documents were information in respect of which a claim of confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings. Following a review, Mr MacKenzie remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
The Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr MacKenzie’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He found that the Council had correctly applied the exemption in section 36(1) and that the public interest in disclosing of the information was outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
However, the Commissioner found that the Council had failed to respond to Mr MacKenzie’s request for review within the timescale specified in section 21(1) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action in relation to this breach in response to this decision.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 040 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433993

R and Orkney Islands Council: SIC 10 Sep 2009

Mr R requested from Orkney Islands Council (the Council) information relating to Equal Opportunities. He also asked for other information relating to him which does not form part of this Decision. The Council initially failed to respond but later responded to a request for review. It also supplied Mr R with its equal opportunity policy together with statistical information which fell within the scope of his request and an explanation of information held. Following the review, Mr R remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council complied with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in that it was correct to inform Mr R that it did not hold an Equal Opportunities Charter, in keeping with section 17 of FOISA.
However, the Commissioner also found that the Council failed to comply with Part 1 of FOISA, in particular by failing to provide reasonable advice and assistance to Mr R regarding clarification of the request and in line with its duty under section 15 of FOISA. It also failed to comply with Part 1 of FOISA by not responding within the statutory timescales in terms of section 10(1) of FOISA and by failing to carry out a review in line with sections 21(4) and (5) of FOISA within the timescales laid down by section 21(1) of FOISA. He does not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 107 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434058

Gowans and Falkirk Council: SIC 12 Jan 2009

SIC Mr John R Gowans requested all the information Falkirk Council (the Council) held regarding the death of his son, Craig Gowans. The Council relied upon sections 34(1)(a), 34(1)(b), 34(2)(b) and 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) to withhold all of the requested information. Following a review, in which the Council upheld its previous decision, Mr Gowans remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Gowans’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the information under section 34(1)(a) of FOISA. He did not require the Council to take any action.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 004 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433951

Carlin and Renfrewshire Council: SIC 12 Jan 2009

Mr Carlin requested from Renfrewshire Council (the Council) all documents relating to a specified investigation of a Councillor. The Council responded by withholding the information under sections 34(1) and 38 of FOISA. Following a review, in which the Council upheld its decision to withhold the information, Mr Carlin remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Council had dealt with Mr Carlin’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA. He found that the information was properly withheld under section 34(1)(b) of FOISA, on the basis that it was information which had been held by the Council for the purposes of carrying out a relevant investigation and the public interest lay in withholding this information.

Citations:

[2009] ScotIC 003 – 2009

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433952

Angove v Scottish Ministers: SIC 19 Oct 2010

SIC Failure to respond to request and request for review – This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to the information request made by Mr Angove.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 180 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433904

Rowlands v Scottish Water: SIC 21 Jul 2010

SIC Mr Rowlands requested from Scottish Water information relating to correspondence between Scottish Water and others relating to houses at Cairndow, Argyll. Scottish Water responded by supplying information relating to the request. Following a review, as a consequence of which Scottish Water provided further information and confirmed that the request had been dealt with under the EIRs, Mr Rowlands remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following the investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that Scottish Water had provided Mr Rowlands with all the relevant information it held.

Citations:

[2010] ScotIC 131 – 2010

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433853

Cannell v Glasgow City Council: SIC 21 Apr 2011

Placements in Council care homes –
Mr Cannell requested from Glasgow City Council (the Council) the date on which an instruction had been given to social workers to make elderly care placements in its own care homes before using private or voluntary sector homes. The Council responded by indicating that it had no policy requiring such an arrangement and therefore did not therefore consider itself to hold such information. Following a review, Mr Cannell remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, although the Commissioner was not entirely satisfied with the Council’s handling of Mr Cannell’s request for information, he accepted that the Council had been correct to give Mr Cannell notice that it did not hold the requested information.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 080 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.433722

Dr X v Scottish Ministers: SIC 20 Apr 2011

SIC Dr X requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) certain correspondence relating to Dr X. The Ministers responded by treating this as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. Following a review, as a result of which the Ministers also relied on section 38(1)(a) of FOISA, Dr X remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had dealt with Dr X’s request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by withholding the information as the applicant’s personal data in accordance with the exemption in section 38(1)(a) of FOISA. He did not require the Ministers to take any action

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 078 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433717

Visible Means Limited and Board of Management of Carnegie College: SIC 11 Mar 2011

Visible Means Limited (Visible Means) requested from the Board of Management of Carnegie College (the College) specified information relating to a logo it had designed. The College responded by advising that it did not hold the information in question. Following a review, Visible Means remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the College had dealt with Visible Means’ request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by advising Visible Means that it did not hold the requested information.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 049 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.433715

Morris v Rae: SCS 5 Apr 2011

The complainer had purchased land from the defender, but the Keeper of the Registers refused to register the transfer, saying that the disponer was not the owner. The claim was for breach of warrandice.

Judges:

Lord Clarke

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 30, 2011 SCLR 428, 2011 SLT 701, 2011 GWD 13-305, [2011] CSIH 30

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Clark v Lindale Homes Limited SCS 1994
The court set out the conditions to found a claim for breach of warrandice on a land purchase: ‘Although eviction did not mean physical removal, it did involve the emergence of a real or threatened burden on the property which had to come from a . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Morris v Rae SC 7-Nov-2012
The pursuer had bought land from the responder which in turn had bought from a company now in liquidation. On application for registration, the Keepr of the registers said the title had not been made out, and he was unable to complete the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Registered Land

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.431766

A M Gillespie and Co v John Howden and Co, Et E Contra: SCS 7 Mar 1885

A customer ordered from a shipbuilder a ship according to specification, which bore, inter alia, that the ship was ‘to Carry 1800 tons dead weight, including coals, on 14 1/2 feet draught,’ and that a model was to be submitted for purchaser’s approval. There was no stipulation as to speed. In implement of this contract the shipbuilder submitted a model which was approved of by the purchaser, and thereafter completed and delivered a ship built according to the model. This ship was found to be short of the carrying capacity stipulated for by about 200 tons. In an action of damages against the shipbuilder for breach of contract he maintained that it was impossible to build a steamer according to the model which would carry the specified weight, and further, that the customer had suffered no damage, because a ship intended to carry such a weight, and of the description according to the model, would have been less valuable than that actually delivered. Held that the shipbuilder, being in breach of contract, was liable in damages.
Observed that in such a case the true standard of damage is the difference between the earning power of the ship contracted for and that furnished.

Citations:

[1885] SLR 22 – 527, (1885) 22 SLR 5

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Cammell Laird and Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass Co Ltd HL 1934
Shipbuilders agreed to build two ships to carry heavy liquids. They were to have propellers of special construction and diameter according to certain specifications. One proved unsatisfactory because it caused too much noise.
Held: If the . .
Cited – MT Hojgaard As v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another SC 3-Aug-2017
The defendants had requested tenders for the design and construction of an offshore wind farm. The court now considered the situation arising because of inconsistencies between documents in the tender request. The successful tender was based upon an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.580224

Main v The Scottish Ministers: SCS 26 Jun 2013

Judicial Review of the imposition on the Petitioner on a period of notification requirements of not less than fifteen years without provision for review within the said fifteen year period in terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Remedial) (Scotland) Order 2011

Citations:

[2013] ScotCS CSOH – 103

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.511100

Quigley v Hart Builders (Edinburgh) Ltd: SCS 28 Jul 2006

The pursuer, a construction worker employed by the defenders, sues in respect of two incidents or series of incidents as a result of which he claims to have suffered an injury to his lower back.

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSOH – 118

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Personal Injury, Health and Safety

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.279618

Lord Falconer of Halkerton v David Lawson: HL 23 Feb 1778

Lease – Ambiguous Clause. – A clause in a lease of fifty-seven years, bound the tenant ‘to renounce at Lammas, before the expiry of the first nineteen years, or prorogue the same for three years, in the option of the said Lord Halkerton, and the said David Lawson.’ Held, in an action of removing brought against the tenant, that this did not import an option that might be exercised by the landlord alone. Reversed in the House of Lords, and held it an option which either landlord or tenant might use singly and alone.

Citations:

[1778] UKHL 6 – Paton – 799

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.562019