Archive for the 'Scotland' Category

Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply A/S – WLR Daily

Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply A/S [2011] UKSC 16; [2011] WLR (D) 126

“When a Scottish holding company’s entire shareholding in one of its subsidiary companies had been pledged to a Scottish creditor as security and, pursuant to Scots law, the creditor had become the registered shareholder, the subsidiary company was, for the purposes of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985, no longer a subsidiary of the holding company.”

WLR Daily, 6th April 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

‘Serious concerns’ over UK Supreme Court change – BBC News

“The Scottish government is to outline its ‘serious concerns’ about plans which it says could threaten the historic independence of Scots law.”

Full story

BBC News, 1st March 2011

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Principal Reporter v K and others – WLR Daily

Principal Reporter v K and others [2010] UKSC 56; [2010] WLR (D) 332

“Positive procedural obligations inherent in the right to respect for family life required sufficient safeguards to be put in place so that a parent or other person whose family life with the child was at risk in the proceedings was given a proper opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.”

WLR Daily, 16th December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Cadder v HM Advocate (HM Advocate General for Scotland and JUSTICE intervening) – WLR Daily

Cadder v HM Advocate (HM Advocate General for Scotland and JUSTICE intervening) [2010] UKSC 43 SC; [2010] WLR(D) 268

“An accused’s rights would, in principle, be irretrievably prejudiced if incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer were admitted in evidence at trial. Accordingly, s 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 should be read and given effect so as to preclude the admission of such evidence, unless in the particular circumstances of the case there had been compelling reasons for restricting access to a lawyer.”

WLR Daily, 26th October 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Farstad Supply AS v Enviroco Ltd – WLR Daily

Farstad Supply AS v Enviroco Ltd [2010] UKSC 18; [2010] WLR (D) 113

“A requirement in a charterparty for the owner to indemnify the charterer against claims resulting from loss or damage in relation to the vessel was not limited to a requirement for the owner to reimburse claims against the charterer by third parties but precluded the owner from recovering damages from the charterer in respect of the charterer’s own negligence. It followed that where it was alleged that the charterer and a third party had jointly caused damage to the vessel whilst it was berthed in Scotland and, because of the indemnity agreement, the owner sued only the third party in the Scots courts, the third party would not be able to claim a contribution under s 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 from the charterer as a ‘person who, if sued, might also have been held liable’.”

WLR Daily, 6th May 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Allison v HM Advocate – Times Law Reports

Allison v HM Advocate

Supreme Court

“In criminal proceedings in Scotland, the Crown was under the same obligation to disclose to the defence any outstanding charges against a prosecution witness as it was to disclose a witness’s previous convictions.”

The Times, 17th February 2010

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Burns v HM Advocate – WLR Daily

Burns v HM Advocate [2008] UKPC 63; [2008] WLR (D) 392

Where a defendant, who was resident in Scotland, was interviewed in England by police officers who told him that there was sufficient evidence on which to charge him with offences relating to child pornography and that they would recommend such a course, the reasonable time requirement to which he was entitled under art 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998, was to be calculated from the date of that interview and not from the later date on which the Lord Advocate, as the competent authority in Scotland, required the defendant to answer charges on which he was indicted to stand trial in Scotland.”

WLR Daily, 17th December 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


April 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Categories