By Catherine Hart on 23/07/2008 19:52
This decision related to whether the author of a number of reports, Dr Kevin Irvine, should be certified as a skilled witness. The issue arose in several personal injury actions in which damages were sought because of prison conditions and the effect of those conditions on prisoners (often referred to as “slopping out” cases). Dr Irvine had produced two styles of report and the vast bulk of each report was broadly similar. Dr. Irvine described himself as a 'medico-legal co ...
|
By Catherine Hart on 23/07/2008 19:33
This case concerned the tenancy of a croft. The Pursuer/ Respondent was the widow of the tenant and the Defender/ Appellant was the Executor Nominate of the landlord of the croft at the time of the tenant’s death. The tenant had left a Will in which he did not make specific reference to the tenancy of the croft but directed that the residue of his estate was to pass to the Pursuer. In terms of s10 the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, a crofter could bequeath the tenancy of his crof ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 21/07/2008 12:19
Disability Discrimination - Disability The issue for the Employment Tribunal was whether the claimant had suffered from an impairment which had a substantial adverse effect on his day to day activities for over 12 months. He had answered a question by the respondent (pre-hearing) as to what precisely his disability was by saying that he suffered from “TB”. Expert medical evidence was that impairments attributable to tuberculosis alone would have lasted for less than 12 months ...
|
By Euan Dow on 20/07/2008 15:05
Appeal under section 238 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997:- In this appeal the appellant sought an order quashing an alteration to the first respondents' local plan which allocated the second respondents' site at Durieshill as the "Major Growth Area" for housing. Section 238 allows a person aggrieved by a structure or local plan or any alteration to such a plan to question its validity on the basis that it was not within the powers conferred by the Act or that a requirement o ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 18/07/2008 12:10
Unfair Dismissal - Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction Triangular relationship. ET finding that worker was employed by neither agency nor end-user. Appeal against end-user finding dismissed. James v Greenwich Council (EAT and CA) applied.
|
By Fiona Davidson on 16/07/2008 19:25
A ruling that Scottish gypsy travellers are not a separate ethnic group under the Race Relations Act is to be reconsidered by an employment tribunal. An Aberdeen tribunal ruled earlier this year that a complaint of victimisation was not allowed as anti-discrimination laws to prevent racial bias did not extend to Scottish gypsy travellers as they were not a separate ethnic group. Kenneth MacLennan had complained of racial discrimination, alleging he was victimised under the Race Relation ...
|
By Fiona Davidson on 16/07/2008 18:57
A council debt adviser who claimed she was bullied, harassed and victimised by council officials and forced out of her job as a result has been ordered to pay £6,000 toward the authority's expenses in defending the action under Rule 40 Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004.. Rona Rodger lost her sex discrimination, victimisation and constructive and unfair dismissal claims against North Ayrshire Council at an employment tribu ...
|
By Catherine Hart on 16/07/2008 18:54
The Pursuer and the Defender have a child, GM. When they separated, The Defender obtained full parental responsibilities and rights in relation to GM. The Defender decided that she would move to Spain to live permanently, taking GM with her. The Pursuer raised proceedings for inter alia interdict. The Defender craved a specific issue order under Section 11 (2) (e) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1985 allowing her to move GM from the UK to live permanently in Spain. She was ordained to l ...
|
By Catherine Hart on 16/07/2008 18:44
This action concerned liability for a road accident involving the Pursuer’s car and a car being driven by the Defenders' employee, M. Quantum was agreed and a Proof on liability took place at which the Pursuer and M were the only witnesses. The accident occurred on a road which had four lanes, two in each direction. M had been in the process of carrying out a u-turn from the south bound carriageway to the north bound carriageway. During the course of this manoeuvre, he had stoppe ...
|
By Daniel Gorry on 16/07/2008 12:14
Contract of Employment - Sick pay This is an appeal concerning entitlement to statutory sick pay. The Employer refused to pay SSP on the grounds that they believed the Claimant was working elsewhere. The Employer argues that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim and that the question of whether or not SSP should be paid here is one for the Benefits Agency to determine. The EAT held that there was no jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's claim.
|
| 1 |