Selected Commercial Cases
AWG Business Centres Ltd v Regus Caledonia Ltd & Another  CSIH 22
This reclaiming motion before the First Division of the Inner House considered the correct interpretation to be given to a tenant’s repairing obligations in a commercial lease. The First Division required to determine whether or not the tenant was liable for the cost of repairs for inherent defects in a multi-storey car park adjoining the office premises.
New Ingliston Ltd v City of Edinburgh Council  CSOH 37
In this commercial action, in which I acted for the defender, Lord Tyre required to determine the extent and scope of the environmental remedial works that the defender required to carry out to land which had been compulsorily acquired for the tram works but was now surplus to requirements.
Regent Quay Developments Company Limited v Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd  CSIH 73
In this reclaiming motion the Extra Division considered whether or not a tenant had validly excercised a break option in a commercial lease.
Gyle Shopping Centre General Partners Ltd v Marks & Spencer Plc  CSIH 19
This appeal before the Extra Division considered the correct interpretation of provisions in a commercial lease regulating the redevelopment of a shopping centre.
Homebase Ltd v Hammersons (Kirkcaldy) Limited  CSOH 50
This debate in the Commercial Court considered whether it was permissible, having regard to the particular terms of the Lease, for the landlord to seek information relating to any rent subsidies or reverse premiums prior to considering whether or not to consent to a proposed sub-lease.
Homebase Ltd v Grantchester Developments (Falkirk) Limited  CSOH 49
This debate in the Commercial Court considered whether it was permissible, having regard to the particular terms of the Lease, for the landlord to seek information relating to any rent subsidies or reverse premiums prior to considering whether or not to consent to a proposed sub-lease.
Pangyrus Ltd v OHIM & RSVP Design Limited Case T-257/11
In this appeal the General Court of the European Court of Justice considered the grounds upon which a Community Trademark could be cancelled on the grounds of bad faith. The General Court also provided guidance on the admissibility of appeals from the Board of Appeal.
Gyle Shopping Centre General Partners Ltd v Marks & Spencer Plc  CSOH 14
This proof in the Commercial Court considered the correct interpretation of provisions in a Commercial Lease regulating the redevelopment of the
Shopping Centre and whether or not the tenants had unreasonably witheld their consent to the landlords' proposed redevelopment.
Axon Well Intervention Products AS v Craig  CSOH 4
This debate in the Commercial Court considered the circumstances in which a parent company could recover damages on behalf of a subsidiary company; and whether or not a "bad leaver" clause in a shareholders' agreement was a liquidate damages provision.
Scotts Atlantic Investments Ltd (In Liquidation) v Dryburgh  CSOH 165
This debate in the Commercial Court considered the meaning and effect of a Deed of Indemnity which had been granted to the original Liquidator by shareholders. In particular, the court considered whether the Deed of Indemnity was personal to the original liquidator, whether it imposed joint and several liability and whether it contained any limitations on liability.
Sutherland v Bank of Scotland Plc  CSOH 113; 2014 G.W.D. 25-477
This proof in the Commercial Court considered the circumstances in which a Personal Guarantee granted by a company director in respect of the debts a limited company could be reduced by the court on the grounds of breach of contract, misrepresentation and/or breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.
Dunfermline B.S. v FM Front Door Ltd CSOH 175; 2011 G.W.D. 37-753
This Opinion of Lord Hodge provides guidance on when the terms of a written contract can be varied by the actings of the parties and on the application of the principles of personal bar in such circumstances. Lord Hodge also clarified when it would be appropriate for the court to grant an administration order.
Johnson & Smart (Projects) Ltd v Sinclair CSOH 166; 2011 G.W.D. 33-699
This Opinion of Lord Malcolm considers when the five year prescriptive period commences in contracts for the supply of services. In particular, Lord Malcolm considers when it necessary for an invoice to have been rendered before the prescriptive period can commence.
Wilmington Trust Co v Rolls Royce Plc CSOH 151; 2011 G.W.D. 32-681
In this Commercial Action Lord Hodge reviews the authorities relating to the creation of liens and provides a modern statement of what conditions required to be fulfilled before a lien can be created. Issues of international private law also arose as the contracts in question were subject to the Law of the State of New York.
Dryburgh v Scotts Media Tax Limited CSOH 147; 2011 G.W.D. 31-658
In this Commercial Action Lord Glennie considered the content and scope of the fiduciary duties and common law duties of care that are incumbent upon a company director when implementing tax avoidance schemes. Lord Glennie also considered the issues of common law fraud on creditors and whether or not all breaches of trust were imprescriptible.
Pocock's Trustee v Skene Investments (Aberdeen) Ltd2011 G.W.D. 30-654
This action concerned attempts by a Trustee in Sequestration to reduce certain fraudulent conveyancing transaction which had been entered into by a fraudulent property developer. The main issue was what rights a bona fide third party in possession had in these particular circumstances. Issues of personal bar and mora, taciturnity and acquiescence were also raised.
Crieff Highland Gathering Ltd v Perth and Kinross Council 2011 S.L.T. 992
This action concerned a tenant's liability for extraordinary repairs. Lord Pentland considered whether the tenants were in breach of their obligations relating to extraordinary repairs and whether any such breaches were of sufficient materiality to entitle the landlord to terminate the lease.
Mitchell v Hiscox Underwriting Ltd2010 G.W.D. 13-244
In this appeal the Extra Division considered the circumstances in which an insurer could avoid a policy if a material misrepresentation by the assured had induced it to enter into the policy on different terms than would otherwise have been offered.
Commonwealth Oil & Gas Ltd v Baxter2010 SC 156
This Opinion of the First Division is the leading Scottish authority on the nature and content of directors' fiduciary duties. In particular, the First Division gave guidance on the fiduciary duties owed by a non-executive director who had directorships with competing companies.
McLeod v Rooney2010 S.L.T. 499
This Opinion of Lord Glennie is a Scottish authority on what requires to be averred and proved in order to rely on the economic delict of causing loss by unlawful means. Lord Glennie also provided guidance on the application of the rule against suing for reflective loss.
Bank of Ireland v Morton2003 SC 257
In this appeal the First Division considered what duties were owed by a creditor to a company director who had provided a personal guarantee for the company's debts. In particular, the First Division held that the existence of a duty on the creditor to advise the guarantor that a first ranking had not been obtained was not supported by the law of cautionry and the existence of such a duty was inconsistent with the terms and conditions set out in the guarantee.
Selected Competition & Public Procurement Cases
Dem-Master Demolition Ltd v Renfrewshire Council  CSOH 150
In this Commercial Action Lord Tyre provided guidance on the circumstances in which it was lawful to disqualify a tenderer that submitted a tender that was not compliant with requirements imposed by the Invitation to Tender.
Boston Scientific Ltd v Common Service Agency  CSOH 132
In this Commercial Action Lord Tyre provided guidance on what constituted a manifest error of assessment and whether it was necessary for a tenderer to provide evidence to support the claimed specification of its products. Lord Tyre also provided guidance on when it would be appropriate to make an interim order under regulation 48(2) of the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2012.
Johnson & Johnson Medical Limited v Greater Glasgow Health Board  CSOH 12
This Opinion of Lord Jones provides guidance on how to relevantly aver a challenge under the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2012, on the circumstances in which an Ineffectiveness Order may be granted and on the operation of the time bar provisions in the Regulations.
Lightways (Contractors) Limited v Inverclyde Council  CSOH 169
In this Commercial Action Lord Tyre awarded the first ever Ineffectiveness Order in Scotland as the defenders had awarded a call off contract to a supplier who was not a party to the framework agreement. Lord Tyre also provided guidance on the EU law principle of proportionality.
Clinical Solutions International Ltd v NHS 24 & Capgemini Plc CSOH 10
This Opinion of Lord Hodge provides further guidance on the test to be applied in relation to Regulation 47(10) applications and highlights the requirement, under Regulation 47(6) of the 2006 Regulations, for a disappointed tenderer to notify the contracting authority of its intention to bring proceedings prior to commencement of the litigation.
Lightways (Contractors) Ltd v North Ayrshire Council 2008 SLT 690
This Opinion of Lord Bracadale considered the circumstances in which a disappointed tenderer could obtain an interim interdict preventing a public authority from awarding a public contract to a competitor under and in terms of The Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2006.
Selected Professional Liability & Disciplinary Cases
LM v Nursing & Midwifery Council  CSIH 86
In this appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session, the Extra Division considered the circumstances in which it was necessary to adjourn a hearing before proceeding to impose a sanction when the practitioner was not in attendance.
David Bartos v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission  CSIH 50
This Inner House appeal considered the competency of hybrid conduct and services complaints and examined whether remittal back to the Commission or the Court substituting its own decision on the merits of the complaint was the appropriate disposal.
Oliphant v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission  CSIH 94
This application for leave to appeal to the Inner House considered the procedure which should be followed by the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission when deciding issues of disputed fact at the stage of determining the eligibility of a complaint.
Stewart & McIsaac v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission  CSIH 23
This appeal to the Inner House considered the correct interpretation of rule 4(6) of the 2009 Rules of the SLCC and provided guidance on when the one year time limit for making complaints of inadequate professional services commenced.
Karus v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission  CSIH 59; 2014 G.W.D. 24-463
This Inner House appeal considered the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the Commission to exercise its discretion in the public interest to receive a late complaint.
University of Glasgow v Sibbald & Baxter 
This student disciplinary hearing before the University Senate considered a complaint that two students had brought the University into disrepute by making allegedly sexist comments at a debating competition. In addition to disputed issues of fact, legal issues relating to jurisdiction, freedom of expression and of privacy arose.
Kidd v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission CSIH 75; 2012 G.W.D. 1-5
This Opinion of the First Division provides guidance on the content and scope of the duty to give reasons by disciplinary bodies such as the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission.
Shetland Health Board v Kelly CSOH 67; 2011 G.W.D. 15-357
In this Ordinary Action Temporary Judge Reid considered, inter alia, when claims for repayment of monies under the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 and 1998 and under common law fraud prescribed.
Sheldon v Nursing & Midwifery Council2010 S.L.T. 1195
In this appeal from the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council the Second Division considered the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Committee and examined the significance of the Indicative Sanctions Guidance when assessing what sanction should be imposed.
Graham v Nursing and Midwifery Council2008 SC 659
In this appeal from the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council the Extra Division held that the sanction imposed had been excessive and disproportionate because the Committee had failed to take into account certain relevant and material considerations. In addition, the Extra Division provided guidance on the extent of the written reasons that the Committee was required to provided when considering what sanction to impose.
Hume v Nursing & Midwifery Council 2007 SC 644
In this appeal from the Conduct and Competence Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council the First Division considered whether it was competent to entertain a statutory appeal under the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 when the appeal was not presented within the time limit set by the relevant legislation. The court held that RCS 2.1(1) was applicable and that there was a discretion to relieve the appellant of the consequences of his failure to present his appeal timeously, provided that the court was satisfied that the failure was due to "mistake, oversight or other excusable cause".
Fairlie v Perth & Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust2004 SLT 1200
In this action a father sought damages from a health board in respect of alleged negligence by Y, a consultant psychiatrist, in the treatment of his daughter (X. Lord Kingarth held that there was nothing which indicated circumstances in which it could be said that Y came at any stage into a special relationship with the pursuer such that he owed a duty to him as well as to X; and that the appropriate means of redress where mere damage to reputation was caused by a statement or statements was an action of defamation and an action of damages based on a failure to fulfil a common law duty of care, without averment of any relevant consequential personal injury, was not a relevant head of loss.
Selected Public Law, Judicial Review & Human Rights Cases
Ismahan Abdi v Secretary of State for the Home Dept  CSIH 25
This appeal before the Inner House of the Court of Session considered the correct approach to take to the assessment of the best interests of the child under section 55 of the Borders Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 when carrying out a “second stage” assessment of the proportionality of an admitted interference with Article 8 rights outside of the Immigration Rules.
Peter Laverie v The Scottish Ministers  CSOH 45
This petition for judicial review challenged the lawfulness of a Statutory Instrument which removed the Board of Management of a College of Further Education; and also challenged the Convention compatibility of a number of statutory provisions which imposed automatic lifelong disqualification orders upon the board members who had been removed from office by the impugned Statutory Instrument.
Ewing v Inverclyde Council  SC GRE 65
This appeal considered the circumstances in which it was lawful for a local authority to make a Demolition Order under the Housing (Scotland) Act in respect of properties which were structurally unstable. In particular, the court gave guidance on onus of proof, the relevant point in time at which the court was called upon to assess structural stability and on the de novo jurisdiction of the court.
Susan Dryburgh v Fife Health Board & The General Dental Council CSOH 116
This petition for judicial review provided general guidance on the competency of seeking to judicially review a decision made in an employment context and on the applicability of Article 6 of the ECHR to an employer's disciplinary hearings.
Beggs v Scottish Information Commissioner  CSIH 23
This appeal to the Inner House considered the scope of the exemptions contained in sections 30(b)(i) and 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. The Inner House also provided guidance on the extent of the right of appeal under section 56 of the 2002 Act and on the approach to be adopted by the court when hearing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner.
Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department  CSIH 13
This appeal before the First Division of the Inner House provided guidance on the weight to be attached to the EU nationality of a spouse or partner when considering the proportionality of removing a third country national from the United Kingdom.
Lardjani v Secretary of State for the Home Department  CSIH 14
This appeal before the First Division of the Inner House considered the proportionality of removing a third country national from the United Kingdom in circumstances where his family and private life had been established when his immigration status had been precarious. The court gave guidance on the weighty considerations that would be required in order to render such a removal a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.
Irfan Liaquat v Secretary of State for the Home Department  CSIH 83
This application for leave to appeal to the Inner House considered the correct approach to be adopted when assessing the proportionality of a Deportation Order, for the purposes of Article 8, when the criminal behaviour which resulted in the Order being made was caused by mental illness which subsequently had been successfully treated.
Stephen Alibinu v Secretary of State for the Home Dept  CSOH 155
This petition for judicial review considered whether or the not the Secretary of State had correctly taken into account the petitioner's Article 8 rights when considering whether or not his further representations constituted a fresh claim for asylum under and in terms of paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules.
Kenneth Muchena v Secretary of State for the Home Dept  CSOH 108
This petition for judicial review considered the correct 4 stage legal approach to be adopted by the Secretary of State when assessing whether or not to issue a Certificate under section 96(1) of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002.
Yasin Salama Ibrahim v Secretary of State for the Home Dept  CSOH 71
This petition for judicial review considered the correct approach to be adopted by the Secrtary of State when considering whether or not further submissions advancing a claim for refugee status sur place amounted to a fresh claim for asylum under and in terms of paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules.
Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HMRC 2015 SLT 281
This Inner House appeal considered whether or not the Court of Session had an inherrent common law power to grant an English barrister ad hoc rights of audience.
Muhammad Irfan Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2015 SC 583
This reclaiming motion considered whether or not it was necessary to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" before there could be any disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of spouses who had married when their immigration status was precarious.
Mirza v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2015 SC 572
This reclaiming motion considered the correct approach to the assessment of Article 8 rights outside of the Immigration Rules when one of the spouses was an EU citizen.
K v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2015 SLT 244
This petition for judicial review considered the circumstances in which it was necessary for the Secretary of State to consider an application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom on Article 8 grounds outside of the Immigration Rules.
MA v Secretary of State for the Home Department  CSIH 111
This appeal to the Inner House considered the approach to be adopted by the FTT and the UT when assessing the credibility of an asylum seeker who had no documentary evidence to support his claim and who had a reasonable excuse for having no knowledge of the conditions in the country from which his family had originated.
Tarves Health Limited v Grampian Health Board 2014 SLT 974
This petition for judicial review provided general guidance on the interpretation of the legislation which enables Health Boards to authorise General Practitioners to dispense prescribed medicines. It also provided guidance on the procedure which required to be followed by Health Boards in order to comply with the rules of natural justice when reviewing such authorisations.
MN & KY v Secretary of State for the Home Department  1 WLR 2064
This appeal to the Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which it was appropriate for the Upper Tribunal to provide general guidance on the use of linguistic analysis reports.
IA(India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  1 WLR 384
This appeal to the Supreme Court considered what the status in the United Kingdom was of persons who had been granted mandated refugee status by the UNHCR.
Beggs v Scottish Information Commissioner  CSIH 10; 2014 GWD 5-113
This appeal to the Inner House considered whether information sought by a convicted prisoner, relating to the facts and circumstances surrounding his offence, was exempt from disclosure under section 34(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002; and whether the public interest in disclosing information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption.
AM(Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  CSIH 1; 2014 GWD 4-88
This appeal to the Inner House considered whether it was a disproprotionate interference with the appellant's Article 8 rights to expect him to return to Algeria to apply for Entry Clearance.
Zoumbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department  1 WLR 3690;  1 All ER 638
This appeal to the Supreme Court considered the application of the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child to claims for asylum by refugees who had children.
MacR v Law Society of Scotland  CSOH 28
This petition for judicial review challenged the procedural fairness of a lengthy investigation into alleged misconduct on the part of a solicitor and considered whether or not Article 6 of the ECHR applied to complaints of this nature.
HFD Construction Ltd v Aberdeen City Council  CSOH 25
This petition for judicial review sought to challenge the Council's decision to redevelop a prime site in Aberdeen on the grounds that it did not comply with the Council's statutory "best value" obligations and contraved EU rules on State Aid. Procedural fairness and common law rationality challenges were also made.
MS v Secretary of State for the Home Department  CSIH 52
This reclaiming motion considered the lawfulness of the new Immigration Rules relating to Article 8 and how these new Rules should be taken into account by the Secretary of State when making an Article 8 decision.
I.W. v Secretary of State for the Home Department  CSIH 90
This Inner House reclaiming motion considered whether or not the Secretary of State had correctly assessed the risk to failed asylum seeker upon his return to India. It also considered the circumstances in which having to be discrete about political beliefs could give rise to a claim for asylum.
Nemah Shehadeh v Secretary of State for the Home Department  CSOH 139
This petition for judicial review challenged the lawfulness of the detention of a failed asylum seeker under the Immigration Act 1971 and sought damages.
K.P. v Secretary of State for the Home Department  CSIH 38
The main issue in this reclaiming motion was whether or not the new rule of court 41.59 was ultra viresand if it was ultra vires what was the appropriate common law test for the court to apply when it was considering whether or not to grant leave to appeal from the Upper Tribunal.
McGeoch v Lord President of the Council2011 S.L.T. 633
In this petition for judicial review Lord Tyre held that a convicted prisoner's application for judicial review of the decision of the electoral registration officer refusing his application to have his name included on the register of local government electors, was incompetent where the applicant had failed to avail himself of the statutory remedy in the Representation of the People Act 1983, which afforded an effective means of seeking redress for any failure to respect his right to be registered to vote, and was not deficient in its ability to give effect to any EU law right to which he might be entitled.
Trustees of the Lithgows Ltd Pension Scheme v Board of the Pension Protection Fund2011 S.C. 426
In this appeal by trustees of a multi-employer occupational pension scheme under the Pensions Act 2004 s.217(1) against a decision of the Pension Protection Fund Ombudsman rejecting their grounds of review in respect of a levy raised against them by the Board of the Pension Protection Fund the First Division held that it ought to be dismissed where the trustees sought to act on behalf of a participating employer in the scheme but the rights to seek a review of the amount of a levy, to refer a reviewable matter to the ombudsman and to appeal to the court against the board's determination were vested in the trustees only and they could not act in a representative capacity.
Miller & Martin v H.M. Advocate2010 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 40
This judgment of the UK Supreme Court provides guidance on the meaning and effect of the provisions in the Scotland Act 1998 which govern the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The Supreme Court held that The Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007 section 45, which increased from 6 months to 12 months the maximum sentence that a sheriff sitting summarily could impose for an offence of driving while disqualified under the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.103(1)(b), was within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
McInnes v H.M. Advocate2010 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 28
In this appeal the Supreme Court held that although the Crown's failure to disclose to an accused material which might have materially weakened its case, or materially strengthened the accused's case, had been incompatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR, that did not mean that the trial had been unfair. An appeal court would find that a trial had been unfair only if it found that there was a real possibility that the jury would have arrived at a different verdict had the disclosure been made.
Allison v H.M. Advocate 2010 S.C. (U.K.S.C.) 19
In this appeal the Supreme Court held that although the Crown's failure to disclose outstanding criminal charges relating to one of its witnesses was incompatible with the accused's rights under Article 6(1) of the ECHR, there had been no miscarriage of justice as there was no real possibility that the jury would have come to a different verdict if it had been aware of them.
Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd v National Appeal Panel2010 S.C. 721
In this reclaiming motion the First Division held that The Lord Ordinary had correctly concluded that the National Appeal Panel had misdirected itself in failing to address the essential contention before it in an appeal against a health board's refusal of a pharmacy operator's application for inclusion in the pharmaceutical list, namely that the existing pharmaceutical provision was inadequate due to the absence of pharmaceutical services at a new health centre.
Absalom v Governor, H.M.P. Kilmarnock GWD 27-519
In this petition for judicial review Lord Tyre held that the refusal by a prison governor of a foreign national prisoner's application for a transfer to the open prison estate was irrational and fell to be reduced where it seemed to be based on an assumption that, in the absence of positive indication from the UKBA that a prisoner would not be deported on release there was a risk that such a prisoner would abscond, and the governor did not have regard to the prisoner's individual circumstances.
Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd, Petitioners GWD 27-521
In this petition for judicial review Lord Pentland held that a health board had not erred in law in refusing a pharmacy's application for a minor relocation where it had properly understood the test it had to apply in determining the application and was entitled to conclude that the rank order of pharmacies in proximity to the new health centre would change if the application was granted, thus there would be an appreciable effect on the applicant and other contractors by affecting their levels of trade.
East Renfrewshire Council v City of Glasgow Council2009 SC 197
In this ordinary action Lord Penrose held that the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 section 23 entitled a local authority to recover the cost of additional support services provided by them to children ordinarily resident in other education authorities' areas, notwithstanding that the children were placed in response to parental choice.
Somerville v Scottish Ministers 1 WLR 2734
This House of Lords case considered the relationship between the Scotland Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and the circumstances in which damages would be payable for a breach of Convention rights. It was held that A claim for damages as just satisfaction in respect of an act by a member of the Scottish Executive which was outside devolved competence because it was incompatible with a Convention right was not subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 section 7(5).
A v Scottish Ministers2008 SLT 412
This Opinion of Lord Turnbull considered whether the legislation relating to the supervision and monitoring of convicted sex offenders was compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR.
Wilson v Aberdeen City Council2008 SC 231
In this appeal the Extra Division held that a local authority's post-1994 policy requiring taxi operators to provide vehicles with wheelchair access was reasonable and lawful, as was its decision to temporarily relax that policy in favour of pre-1994 licence-holders for commercial reasons.
Infant and Dietetic Foods Association, Petitioners2008 SLT 137
In the course of proceedings for judicial review of a decision by the Scottish Ministers to make and lay before Parliament the Infant Formula and Follow-On Formula (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (SSI 2007/549) Lord Macphail considered when it would be appropriate to suspend on an interim basis the commencement of a statutory instrument.
United Co-operative Ltd v National Appeal Panel2007 SLT 831
In this petition for judicial review Lord Glennie provided guidance on the application of the plea of mora, taciturnity and acquiescence in the context of judicial review and on the content of the duty to give reasons incumbent upon bodies such as the National Appeal Panel.
S v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel2007 SC 748
This reclaiming motion before the Extra Division considered whether the "same roof" rule in paragraph 7(b) of the 1996 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was compatible with Article 6 and Protocol 1 Article 1 of the ECHR, when taken with Article 14. The Extra Division also considered the circumstances in which the Human Rights Act 1998 could have retrospective effect.
Wiles v Bothwell Castle Golf Club2005 SLT 785
Three members of a golf club sought judicial review of a decision of the club committee terminating their membership of the club because they had objected to a planning application made by the club. Lord Glennie held that the acts and conduct of the petitioners, in themselves, were entirely unobjectionable, that they only became the focus of objection from the committee because the proposal they had taken exception to had come from the respondents, and that this was insufficient to render their conduct and acts susceptible to the committee's disciplinary jurisdiction.
Other Reported Public Law Cases
Scottish National Party v STV1998 SLT 1395 (OH)
Zhu v SSHD1998 SLT 1251
Francois v SSHD1999 SLT 79 (OH)
Asif v SSHD1999 SLT 890 (OH)
Singh v SSHD2000 SC 219, 2000 SLT 243 (IH)
Mills v H.M.A. (No.2)2001 SLT 1359 (IH)
Ahmed v SSHD2001 SC 705 (OH)
Asif v SSHD2002 SC 182, 2002 SLT 307 (IH)
Saha v SSHD2003 SC 242 (IH)
Manz v SSHD2003 SLT 1278 (OH)
Khairandish v SSHD2003 SLT 1358 (OH)
Singh v SSHD2004 SC 416, 2004 SLT 1058 (IH)
Musaj v SSHD2004 SLT 623 (OH)
Hider v SSHD2004 SLT 145 (IH)
Hoseini v SSHD2005 SLT 550 (IH)
Johnson v SSHD2005 SLT 393 (OH)
Temel v SSHD2005 SLT 204 (OH)
Koca v SSHD2005 SC 487, 2005 SLT 838 (IH)
Hussein v SSHD2005 SC 509 (IH)
DD v SSHD2005 SC 415 (IH)
R v Highland Council2007 SLT 513
YKM v Secretary of State for the Home Department2007 SC 796
CW v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2008 SC 105
M v Secretary of State for the Home Department2008 SC 105
K v Secretary of State for the Home Department2009 SLT 525
N v Secretary of State for the Home Department2009 SLT 557
TR(Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department2010 S.C. 205
SMF(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2010 S.C. 279
TP(Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 10-163
FH(AP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department2010 S.C. 239
MAS(Palestine) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 15-240
DBNBK v Secretary of State for the Home Department2010 S.C. 230
AAH(Sudan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 20-331
AA(AP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 34-585
K(DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 31-522
ME(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 35-600
MB(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 28-455
P v The Advocate General GWD 29-461
JBM v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 27-439
DKN v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 29-470
SS(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 28-58
JS(Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 26-504
HA(Afghanistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department2010 S.C. 457
RA(Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department GWD 15-296
AAS(Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department2010 S.C. 383
R v Secretary of State for the Home Dept2010 S.L.T. 1251
Guven v Secretary of State for the Home Dept2010 S.C. 555
S v Secretary of State for the Home Dept 2011 S.L.T. 297
CB v Secretary of State for the Home Dept2011 S.C. 248
AAS(Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept2011 S.L.T. 1058
EY(Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept2011 S.C. 388
JMC(DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept2011 G.W.D. 7-188
IA(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept 2011 S.C. 625
BM(Malawi) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept2011 S.C. 726
MAS(Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept 2011 G.W.D. 20-473
BMAS(Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept  G.W.D. 26-591
VH(Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Dept G.W.D. 34-711