Agricultural & Rural Law

AON Ltd v JLT Reinsurance Brokers Ltd and others (QB) (14 January 2010)

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:03:54 GMT

The claimant was an insurance broking company involved in insuring aviation risks with an international presence. It was one of the four main companies in that market, together with the first defendant and other such companies. It was common ground that 16 of the claimant's employees resigned from the claimant's employ and moved to the first defendant. The claimant brought proceedings against the defendants, alleging that the first defendant had carried out what was commonly called a 'team poaching' exercise and had procured the resignations of 16 of its staff, all experienced and all valued with established contact with clients and confidential information which belonged to the claimant. It further alleged that that was a concerted action and was the result of the first defendant procuring the services of those staff in breach of their contracts of employment. The claimant made a without notice application for relief and received an order accordingly. The defendants contended that the order should be di scharged in its entirety. The Court ruled that the order be discharged as all that had been shown was a good arguable case, no more and no less. The order was far wider than anything in any other case discussed and was the very antithesis of the focused and proportionate approach that might have made such an application more palatable.

Fraser v Bolt Burdon & Ors (QB) (23 November 2009)

Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:38:18 GMT

The advice of Counsel to accept an offer to setztle in respect of a professional negligence arising out of a time-barred clinical negligence case was advice to be expected of a reasonably competent solicitor or barrister and was in fact very good advice.

Mrs Graham Tuley & Mrs Margot Tuley v. The Highland Council [2009] CSIH 31A

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:22:00 GMT

Appeal from the Sheriff Court:- The pursuers were the landowners of an area of woodland in Fortrose. On 7 November 2005 the defenders served on the pursuers a notice under section 14(2) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 requiring the landowner to take certain remedial action specified in the notice in relation to various provisions respecting public rights of access to land for recreational purposes. The notice required the pursuers to allow equestrian access to the track in question in addition to the existing pedestrian access which a walker had by passing through a gap between barriers and adjoining fences. By way of a summary application under section 14(4) of the 2003 Act the pursuers sought recall or variation of the notice. At proof the case advanced by the pursuers was that the purpose in erecting the barriers preventing equestrian and vehicular access was to prevent damage to their land, in particular soil erosion. The position advanced on behalf of the defenders was that it was for the access-taker to decide whether the taking of access would be responsible and it was for the horse rider to take the decision whether he could appropriately ride over the land without causing unacceptable damage and the landowner could not prejudge that issue or deprive the horse rider of the opportunity of making such a decision. Following proof the sheriff refused the summary application and it was against that decision that the pursuers appealed. The grounds of appeal related to the way the sheriff dealt with the expert evidence in relation to the anticipated soil erosion and the sheriff's interpretation of section 14 of the 2003 Act.

Mr A Beck v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce UKEAT/0064/09

Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:24:00 GMT

Practice and Procedure - Disclosure

Disclosure of specific documents is necessary where evidence in a different employee’s grievance, of a “smoking gun” supporting the Claimant’s case of race discrimination, is found and sought to be pursued. Employment Judge’s refusal set aside and a fresh narrower application granted.

O’Carroll v Ryanair - Aberdeen Sheriff Court, 11th September 2008

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:33:00 GMT

The Pursuers/Appellents raised a small claim action for damages after the arrival of their baggage was delayed for 48 hours. They sought out of pocket expenses and also compensation for stress, inconvenience and disruption to their holiday. At the preliminary hearing the Sheriff had noted that there was no dispute on the facts but the issue was whether the court had jurisdiction and, if it did, whether the Defenders were protected under the Montreal Convention 1999, which, it was accepted, governed the contract between the parties, and were not liable to pay damages to the Pursuers. At proof, the Defenders had not insisted on their defence based on jurisdiction, but continued to argue that the Pursuers were not entitled to damages. The Sheriff found that they were and granted decree for the sum sued for plus expenses. This included an award of £275 for each Pursuer as compensation for stress and inconvenience. The Defenders appealedon the issue of whether the Sheriff had been entitled to hold that the Pursuers’ claim for compensation for stress and inconvenience was allowable. They argued that the claim fell to be excluded under Articles 29 of the Convention as being “punative, exemplary or non compensatory”. The Sheriff Principal considered a number of County Court decisions referred to by the Defenders, but did not find these helpful. He upheld the Sheriff’s decision. It was clear that the damages awarded were compensatory. The Sheriff had also been correct to refuse to hear any argument on the quantum of the Pursuers’ claim as this was not raised by the Defenders at the preliminary hearing – they had only taken issue on the question of jurisdiction.

Margaret Gardner v John Curran – Wick Sheriff Court, 15 July 2008

Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:33:00 GMT

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 croft to a family member. Sections 16 (1) and (2) of the Succession (Sc) Act 1964 also deal with the bequest of a tenant's interest under a Lease. The Pursuer sought a Declarator that the tenancy of the croft had passed to her under the terms of her late husband’s will as part of the residue of his Estate and in accordance with Section 10 of the 1993 Act. She contended that, on a proper construction of the will, the residue clause was effective to pass the tenancy of the croft to her. The Defender maintained that the will did not do so as it contained no specific bequest of the croft to the Pursuer. The Sheriff found in favour of the Pursuer. The Defender argued on appeal that construing the relevant statutory provisions appropriately confirmed that there had to be a specific bequest of the tenancy of the croft to one person and, in the absence of such a specific bequest, the tenancy fell into intestacy. A number of authorities were referred to in support of this argument. In response, the Pursuer argued that the issue was purely one of construction of the deceased’s will in light of the relevant statutory provision - Section 10 (1) of the 1993 Act. The correct approach was to ascertain what the deceased’s intention had been from the terms of the will and, if the Court was satisfied that he had intended to dispose of the tenancy of his croft, to determine whether or not he had succeeded in doing so. The Sheriff Principal agreed with the Pursuer. The question was whether, by the residue clause of his will, the deceased had intended to bequeath, and did bequeath, the residue of his whole Estate, including as it did the tenancy of his croft, to the Pursuer. The Sheriff Principal considered that the Sheriff had reached the correct conclusion and he refused the Appeal.

Tor Corporate A.S. v. Siopect Group Start Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Others For Judicial Review of a Decision of Arbiters 2008 CSIH 9 P1890/06

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:39:00 GMT

Reclaiming Motion - Petition for judicial review, the petitioners were seeking to set aside an arbitral award. The dispute which was submitted to arbitration arose out of a contract between the petitioners and the first respondents in terms of which the petitioners were to act as managers of a semi-submersible drilling unit owned by the first respondents. A preliminary issue had arisen as to whether the application for setting aside the award was timeously made. That issue was debated before the Lord Ordinary at a first hearing. It was held that the application had not been timeously made and therefore by interlocutor dated 29 May 2007 dismissed the petition. The petitioners were now seeking review of that interlocutor.