Search Results

In Anderson v Hogg a shareholder in a company presented a petition under section 459 of the Companies Act 1985 for relief against unfair prejudice. The petitioner sought to have the respondent ordained to repay to the company sums which the company had paid to the respondent by way of allegedly unauthorised salary bonus, redundancy payments, and the like. In the Outer House, Lord Reed found that the various payments did not result in unfair prejudice to the petitioning shareholder and refused the petition. This chapter argues that the traditional Scottish scepticism about equity as a source is well justified. In particular, it is justified by among other things the very policy against unwise anglicisation which Sir Thomas normally preached. More specifically, the chapter contends that it is misleading to say that the Court of Session has an equitable jurisdiction comparable to that of the English Court of Chancery; that we do not need such a jurisdiction; and what is more we are better off without it.

This chapter examines how the jurisprudence of the Scottish Enlightenment influenced the reform of the Court of Session and its procedure. It first provides an overview of legislation and courts in eighteenth-century Scotland before discussing the idea of the ‘legislator’, with particular emphasis on some of the attitudes taken to it and the ambiguities of the term. It then considers the development of ethical theory in Scotland during the period, along with Adam Smith's legal philosophy. It also analyses Smith's science of legislation and its implications in the context of Scottish legal history. It concludes by showing how Scottish rejection of ethical rationalism and Smith's science of legislation provided what can be described as a sustained critique of the contemporary structure of the Court of Session and of its operation.

This chapter examines the roles of some of the main office holders within the Court of Session who dominated the writing chambers which governed the functioning of the court. In particular, the role and significance of the clerks of session is investigated. At a less exalted level, the practical significance of lesser clerks and extractors is discussed, along with those who collected fees, worked in the chancery and privy seal office, and held custody of records. The preservation of records within the College, and the wider significance of College members in preserving legal and historical records, is also investigated.

This chapter examines the Law Hospital NHS Trust case (1996) involving Janet Johnstone, a patient in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). Johnstone received assisted nutrition and hydration (ANH) treatment for almost three years. The issue in this case is whether or not the State, through the courts, can allow medical professionals to discontinue the ANH treatment and bring about the death of a PVS patient. The case moved from the Court of Session to the House of Lords whose ruling favoured the discontinuance of the ANH treatment. The case highlighted ethical and clinical dilemmas. The ethical dilemma centred on whether or not it was right to discontinue Johnstone's life support. The clinical dilemma focused on whether or not it could ever be appropriate to continue to use scarce resources, namely the time and expertise of medical professionals.

This chapter explores the MacCormick case, a Scottish constitutional landmark inquest. John MacCormick, an accomplished solicitor and partner of a law firm based in Glasgow, claimed that the British Parliament breached the basic law of the Treaty of Union of 1707 when they passed the Royal Titles Act 1953. He argued that the passage of the Act demonstrated the excessive power of the Parliament. The Court of Session however still dismissed the case based on the jury's ruling that parliamentary sovereignty was a basic principle of the Scottish constitutional law. The case gained considerable attention not only due to its commitment to the Scottish indigeneity, but also due to the controversial dissenting opinion of Lord Cooper, the Lord President of the Court of Session.

This chapter discusses the civil reparation lawsuit filed by May Donoghue against David Stevenson, a manufacturer of ginger beer. Donoghue alleged that the ginger beer float that she drank contained the decomposing remains of a snail, and caused her to suffer from gastro-enteritis. She initially claimed to the Court of Session that Stevenson should have observed duty of care as the concoction's manufacturer. In his defence, Stevenson argued that manufacturers could not be reasonably required to answer for the safety of their products to the ultimate consumers, to whom they do not owe duty of care. Donoghue won in the first instance the case was tried, causing Stevenson to appeal before the House of Lords, which also favoured Donoghue.

This chapter examines the civil reparation lawsuit filed by Scottish spouses George McFarlane and Laura Helen McFarlane against the Tayside Health Board. The McFarlanes alleged that Mr Irving, a Health Board surgeon, performed a botched vasectomy on George McFarlane that led to the unplanned pregnancy of Laura McFarlane. The claim was brought before the Court of Session and the House of Lords; both of the judicial bodies gave an almost similar majority judgment and subsequently dismissed the case. According to the judicial bodies, the law has viewed the birth of a normal healthy baby as a blessing rather than a detriment; thus, for this particular case, there was no loss at all.