Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 UKSC 31
Justices
Lord Reed (President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens and Lady Rose
Background to the Appeal
The Scottish Government has drafted a Scottish Independence Referendum Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”. Under the Scotland Act 1998 (“the Scotland Act”), the power of the Scottish Parliament to make legislation (or its “legislative competence”) is limited. A provision of a Bill will be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore not law if it relates to the matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament in Westminster (sections 29(1) and (2)(b)). These reserved matters include “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)).
In this reference, the Lord Advocate (the senior law officer of the Scottish Government) asks the Court whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament because it relates to either or both of the reserved matters of the Union or the United Kingdom Parliament. This is a legal question about the Scottish Parliament’s power to make legislation under the Scotland Act. The Court is not being and could not be asked to give a view on the distinct political question of whether Scotland should become independent from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The powers of the Scottish Parliament were not in issue during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. This is because, in 2013, an Order in Council under section 30(2) of the Scotland Act modified the definition of reserved matters to enable the Scottish Parliament to pass the 2014 referendum legislation. The United Kingdom Government is currently unwilling to agree to the making of another Order in Council to facilitate another referendum on Scottish independence.
The Lord Advocate’s reference was made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The Advocate General for Scotland (the Scottish law officer of the United Kingdom Government) raises two preliminary issues, namely, whether the Court can and should answer the reference. There are consequently three questions which the Court must consider. First, is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a “devolution issue”? If not, it cannot be the subject of a reference under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6, which would mean that the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide it. Secondly, even if it is a devolution issue, should the Court exercise its discretion to decline to accept the reference? Thirdly, if the Court accepts the reference, how should it answer the question the Lord Advocate has referred to it?
Judgment
In a unanimous judgment, the Court answers the questions before it as follows. First, the question referred by the Advocate General is a devolution issue, which means that that the Court has jurisdiction to decide it. Secondly, the Court should accept the reference. Thirdly, the provision of the proposed Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” does relate to matters which have been reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom under the Scotland Act. In particular, it relates to the reserved matters of the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Accordingly, in the absence of any modification of the definition of reserved matters (by an Order in Council or otherwise), the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence.
Reasons for the Judgment
Issue 1: Is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a devolution issue?
Only a “devolution issue” can be referred to the Court under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The term “devolution issue” is defined by paragraph 1 of Schedule 6. Under paragraph 1(f), it includes “any other question arising by virtue of this Act about reserved matters” [13-14]. The Court concludes that the question referred by the Lord Advocate falls within this description and is therefore a devolution issue which the Court has jurisdiction to decide [47].
In reaching this conclusion, the Court holds, first, that the question referred is one “arising by virtue of” the Scotland Act because it is a question which arises under section 31(1) for the person wishing to introduce the Bill into the Scottish Parliament [16]. That person is required, on or before the Bill’s introduction, to give a statement confirming that, in their view, the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [9]. Secondly, the existence of the separate scheme for the scrutiny of Bills for legislative competence by the Court in section 33 of the Scotland Act does not prevent a reference from being made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 in relation to a proposed Bill, before it is introduced [21-27]. Thirdly, the terms of paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 6 are very wide. They are intended to sweep up any questions arising under the Scotland Act about reserved matters which are not covered elsewhere [37-42]. Fourthly, it is consistent with the rule of law and with the intention of the Scotland Act that the Lord Advocate should be able to obtain an authoritative judicial decision on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in advance of the introduction of a Bill [44-46].
Issue 2: Should the Court decline to accept the Lord Advocate’s reference?
The Court concludes that it should accept the reference [54]. The reference has been made in order to obtain an authoritative ruling on a question of law which has already arisen as a matter of public importance. The Court’s answer will determine whether the proposed Bill is introduced into the Scottish Parliament. The reference is not therefore hypothetical, academic or premature [53].
Issue 3: Does the proposed Bill relate to reserved matters?
The question whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would relate to matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act (section 29(2)(b)) is to be determined by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances (section 29(3)) [56-57], [70], [75].
A provision will relate to a reserved matter if it has something more than a loose or consequential connection with it [57], [71-72]. The purpose and effect of the provision may be derived from a consideration of both the purpose of those introducing the legislation and the objective effect of its terms [73]. Its effect is not restricted to its legal consequences [74].
Applying this test, the reserved matters which are relevant here are “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)). The latter reservation includes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament [76]. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to hold a lawful referendum on the question of whether Scotland should become an independent country, that is, on ending the Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament over Scotland [77], [82]. The Bill’s effect will not be confined to the holding of the referendum. Even if the referendum has no immediate legal consequences, it would be a political event with important political consequences [78-81]. It is therefore clear that the proposed Bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Accordingly, the proposed Bill relates to reserved matters and is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [82-83], [92].
The Scottish National Party (intervening) made further written submissions founded on the right to self–determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law [84]. The Court rejects these submissions, holding that the right to self–determination is not in issue here [88-89] and does not require a narrow reading of “relates to” in section 29(2)(b) so as to limit the scope of the matters reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act [90]. Similarly, the allocation of powers between the United Kingdom and Scotland under the Scotland Act does not infringe the principle of legality [91].
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
Full judgment here.
Paul Reid, junior counsel to the Lord Advocate, instructed by the SGLD
Back
Ampersand Advocates continues Top Rankings success in 2023 Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide
Ampersand Advocates has once again received top tier rankings across a number of areas of practice in the latest published guide to the legal profession, Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide 2023.
Ampersand received 74 listings across 17 areas of practice, ranking as top tier (band 1) in Clinical Negligence and Planning & Environmental Law as a Set, and band 2 in Administrative & Public law, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, Commercial Dispute Resolution, Construction, Personal Injury, Professional Negligence, Real Estate Litigation and Restructuring/Insolvency as a Set. 5 members are noted as “star individuals”. There is wide practice for the clerking team and client service too.
Noted as a Band 1 set for Clinical Negligence, “retains its reputation as a market-leading stable for clinical negligence matters. Its advocates continue to provide expert legal advice and representation to both pursuers and defenders in a wide range of disputes, including claims relating to birth and catastrophic brain and spinal injuries. Members are well versed in cases arising from alleged failures in diagnosis and surgical errors, and regularly appear at fatal accident inquiries. The stable also houses considerable expertise in multiparty actions stemming from the use of medical equipment.” Our rankings include 2 “Star Individuals”, Maria Maguire KC and David Stephenson KC, with 11 further silks and 6 juniors also ranked – Simon Bowie KC, Jamie Dawson KC, Simon Di Rollo KC, Una Doherty KC, Lisa Henderson KC, Vinit Khurana KC, Archie MacSporran KC, Euan Mackenzie KC, Geoffrey Mitchell KC, Graham Primrose KC, Lauren Sutherland KC, Fiona Drysdale, Mark Fitzpatrick, James McConnell, Jennifer Nicholson-White, Paul Reid and Phil Stuart.
Ampersand’s Band 1 listing in Planning & Environment states “well regarded for the complex planning and environmental work undertaken by its advocates. Members of the stable regularly act in judicial reviews and challenges to planning permissions, and frequently act on behalf of developers, objectors, public sector bodies and energy companies. Members are regularly engaged in high-profile matters, including those relating to large renewable energy projects. One source notes that “the depth and breadth of expertise at the stable is first class””. Rankings include Malcolm Thomson KC as “Star Individual”, and Band 1 ranked Marcus McKay KC, Ailsa Wilson KC and Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen KC.
Band 2 listings include Administrative & Public Law where Ampersand is praised “highly praised practitioners who are skilled at acting in public law cases involving significant constitutional and human rights issues. They frequently appear before the highest courts in the UK and the EU.” The rankings include “Star Individual” Aidan O’Neill KC, along with Ian Forrester KC, Douglas Ross KC, Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen KC, Paul Reid, Usman Tariq and Timothy Young.
In Civil Liberties & Human Rights Ampersand is noted as a “highly regarded civil liberties and human rights stable, known for representing both private individuals and public bodies in significant proceedings. Practitioners at Ampersand are regularly instructed by the government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.” The rankings include Aidan O’Neill KC, Douglas Ross KC and Usman Tariq.
In Commercial Dispute Resolution Chambers state Ampersand is “admired for its skilful work in high-profile commercial disputes. The stable offers a large team comprising highly rated advocates at the senior and junior levels. The advocates are instructed on behalf of corporations and financial institutions and are involved in a variety of related areas of practice including intellectual property and insolvency.” The rankings include Robert Howie KC, Graeme Hawkes KC, Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen KC, Ross Anderson, Eoghainn MacLean, Giles Reid, Paul Reid, Usman Tariq and Tim Young.
Within Personal Injury “Ampersand Advocates is a highly regarded stable for personal injury matters and houses a number of dedicated senior and junior advocates. Members act for both pursuers and defenders, including several major insurers, in the full range of claims, and offer considerable expertise in the handling of catastrophic injury cases arising from road traffic and workplace accidents. Jennifer Nicholson-White acted for the first defender in a claim brought by the pursuer who suffered a significant head injury while at work following a fall. The team is also well regarded for its expertise in complex product liability and occupiers’ liability disputes and matters involving accidents abroad. The stable’s tenants are regularly called upon to appear in fatal accident inquiries, where they have experience of acting for government agencies, health boards and local authorities. Interviewees report: “Ampersand offer counsel with strong expertise across a wide range of practice areas.” Another adds: “They provide consistently excellent and pragmatic advice.””
Rankings include “Star Individuals” Maria Maguire KC and Graham Primrose KC with others ranked Isla Davie KC, Simon Di Rollo KC, Lisa Henderson KC, Euan Mackenzie KC, Douglas Ross KC, Alan Cowan, Chris Marney and Jenny Nicholson-White.
The Set ranking in Professional Negligence declares “Ampersand Advocates is a leading stable for professional liability matters in Scotland. The advocates often advise and act in proceedings on behalf of and against a suite of professionals including solicitors, surveyors, architects and financial advisers.” The rankings include Chris Marney, Paul Reid and Usman Tariq.
In the Set ranking for Real Estate Litigation, it exclaims “Ampersand Advocates offers a strong bench of well-regarded advocates who are active across a broad range of real estate litigation topics. The set demonstrates strong expertise in areas of overlap between commercial and real estate disputes. Members are instructed at all levels from the Supreme Court down.” Rankings include Robert Howie KC, Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen KC, Ross Anderson, Giles Reid and Tim Young.
The Construction Set ranking states “Ampersand Advocates offers significant experience in advising clients in relation to a range of building and construction works in Scotland. The bench handles a variety of contractual, delays and construction disputes, also involving defects issues. Its advocates have notable expertise in adjudications and enforcement actions, as well as construction-related bond matters.” Rankings include Robert Howie KC and Timothy Young.
Within Restructuring/Insolvency “Ampersand Advocates is well regarded for its handling of a wide range of restructuring and insolvency matters. The stable’s advocates are frequently instructed to represent administrators, companies, banks and insolvency office holders in complex claims involving allegations of wrongful trading and breach of fiduciary duty, among other matters. Members have experience of appearing in both domestic and cross-border matters, and are regularly called upon to act for and advise their clients on both contentious and non-contentious insolvency cases.” Rankings include Robert Howie KC, David Sellar KC, Ross Anderson and Usman Tariq.
There are individual rankings in: Agriculture and Rural Affairs for Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen KC; Company for David Sellar KC and Tim Young; Employment for Aidan O’Neill KC; Information Technology and Intellectual Property for Usman Tariq; Product Liability for Paul Reid; and Tax for Ross Anderson.
The Ampersand clerks again receive wide praise across all areas of practice, noting “the service is always excellent and has been for years” and described as “one of the best stables to work with”. The clekrs are noted as “a very professional team who also have the commercial reality required.” Further comments include: “The clerking team at Ampersand are always willing to help and are quick to respond to queries. If there is a complex or time-sensitive matter, they will do their utmost to assist in a timely manner… The clerks are wonderful, prompt and very friendly… The clerks know the advocates and their strengths and skill, and are great at managing their diaries… The clerks are responsive and willing to help. They will often go above and beyond the call of duty to find solutions to difficult situations.”
On the recent rankings, Practice Manager, Alan Moffat, said: “This is yet again wonderful recognition and praise for all of the excellent work our advocates and my team does on a continual basis. My thanks goes to everyone who took the time out of their busy schedules to provide Chambers with their views. We work in collaboration with the profession and it is again pleasing to hear those that instruct our members recognise the value our members bring to the legal team. I am very proud of the excellent and hard work my team puts in every day and am pleased to see that appreciated too. We will continue to strive for excellence and the rankings provide insight into our success in achieving that aim.”
The full rankings can be viewed on the Chambers and Partners website here.
Back
Ampersand Advocates ranked as top tier set by Legal 500 in 2023 guide
Ampersand is delighted to once again be recommended as a top-tier set by The Legal 500 UK Bar Directory in their latest listings for the 2023 guide. Listed as tier 1 in Administrative & Public Law, Personal Injury & Medical Negligence and Property, Planning & Construction, and tier 2 in Commercial Disputes, Ampersand has collected 22 Senior Counsel rankings, 21 Junior Counsel rankings, including 2 rising stars, across the Scottish Bar listings.
Administrative and Public Law
TIER 1
Ampersand Advocates is home to a team of ‘excellent public and administrative law counsel‘. In a prominent case highlight, Douglas Ross KC and Paul Reid represented the Scottish Ministers in Fair Play for Women Limited v Registrar General for Scotland & Scottish Ministers, concerning a judicial review challenging the guidance issued to accompany the “sex question” in the 2022 Scottish census; the review was refused and the challenge thrown out. Aidan O’Neill KC (who has dual tenancy with London-based set Matrix Chambers) garners praise for his ‘outstanding knowledge‘, and successfully acted for rewilding charity Trees for Life in a judicial review brought against Scottish Government agency NatureScot, on the grounds that the agency’s policy of issuing licences to cull beavers was unlawful.
Testimonials
Stable
‘Very helpful and responsive.’
‘Considerable strength in depth.’
Leading silks
Band 1
Aidan O’Neill KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘Aidan is beyond talented. He thinks of novel and innovative approaches to arguments, as well as having an extraordinary base of legal and historical knowledge which can be brought to bear.’
Douglas Ross KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘Douglas excels at seeing a clear route to a sound and practical solution through competing arguments. He has the confidence of clients in a tight situation and the total respect of the court; he wears his learning lightly and deploys it persuasively. He is an ideal public law silk.‘
Band 2
Susanne Tanner KC
Leading juniors
Band 1
Paul Reid
Band 2
Ross Anderson
Usman Tariq
Timothy Young – Ampersand Advocates ‘Timothy has a pragmatic approach to cases. He is an extremely safe pair of hands.’
Rising Star
Michael Way – Ampersand Advocates ‘Michael is exceptionally thorough and meticulous, very insightful in his drafting, and exceptional on his feet.‘
Commercial Disputes
TIER 2
Viewed as ‘one of the best stables for commercial disputes counsel‘, Ampersand Advocates‘ team fields expertise in handling insolvency matters, IP-related cases and professional negligence issues, to name a few. Laura-Anne Van Der Westhuizen KC has notable experience in advising on commercial disputes with planning and real estate elements. Graeme Hawkes KC is ‘very responsive‘ and regularly acts in litigation involving commercial contracts. Timothy Young ‘delivers complex legal issues in an easy to understand and pragmatic way‘. Shareholder disputes form a core pillar of Paul Reid‘s practice.
Testimonials
Stable
‘Good pool of advocates.’
‘Extremely efficient, friendly and responsive.’
Leading silks
Band 2
Alan Dewar KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘A silk who is extremely knowledgeable, concise and certainly has the ear of the court.’
Robert Howie KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘Robert is able to identify core issues in highly complex litigation quickly and with razor sharp focus, and provides practical advice on and solutions to those issues. His analytical skills are first-rate.’
Leading juniors
Band 1
Ross Anderson – Ampersand Advocates ‘Ross is a good communicator and a first-rate advocate who is quick on his feet. He provides sound and detailed advice.’
Eoghainn MacLean – Ampersand Advocates ‘He thoroughly considers the issues in a case.’
Usman Tariq – Ampersand Advocates ‘He is assiduous and tremendously user-friendly. Judges like his understated approach in court.’
Band 2
Mark Boni – Ampersand Advocates ‘Mark is extremely professional in his approach. He has a good manner with clients and provides clear and concise advice on difficult legal issues.’
Paul Reid – Ampersand Advocates ‘Paul understands the pressures solicitors and clients are under and is incredibly easy to work with. He is across every detail, and can be relied upon to explain complex issues in simple language.’
Timothy Young – Ampersand Advocates ‘Timothy is extremely commercial, and takes time to understand the client’s objectives and the wider context of the dispute. He is excellent under pressure and he is extremely robust. His written work is clear and persuasive, and he is equally impressive on his feet.’
Rising Star
Michael Way – Ampersand Advocates ‘Michael is very knowledgeable, and builds a strong rapport with solicitors and clients alike.’
Personal Injury and Medical Negligence
TIER 1
Ampersand Advocates garners particular praise for its ‘unique depth and range of expertise in clinical negligence‘; complex, high-value personal injury work is another core pillar of strength for the team. Maria Maguire KC has solid expertise in advising on cases involving psychiatric injuries and catastrophic injury matters. Lauren Sutherland KC, who is also a member of Byrom Street Chambers in Manchester, is well known for handling cerebral palsy and brain injury cases, and has niche expertise in advising on issues of consent in relation to clinical negligence matters. Among the juniors, Jennifer Nicholson-White is active in both areas, and represents pursuers and defenders in a range of litigation.
Testimonials
Stable
‘Very high calibre of advocates.’
‘The stable has a wealth of experience.’
Leading silks
Band 1
David Stephenson KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘David is a brilliant and skilled orator, who is highly effective on his feet in court. He is a very safe pair of hands in complex, high value clinical negligence cases.’
Euan Mackenzie KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘Euan is an excellent advocate, with a mild demeanour that belies a steely core.’
Geoffrey Mitchell KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘He is a skilled and practical negotiator. A silk with a calm presence in court, unfailingly polite but rigorous in questioning.’
Graham Primrose KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘Graham is simply outstanding in his field. A stalwart negotiator and a quality operator at the top of his game.’
Lisa Henderson KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘Lisa is excellent with clients, and they are well aware of her dedication to the case. She is thorough in her preparation.’
Maria Maguire KC -Ampersand Advocates ‘Maria is a class act. She is top of her game in this field. She is a master at analysing complex cases and providing clear and straightforward advice to clients.’
Simon Bowie KC -Ampersand Advocates ‘Simon is an exceptional silk who is always thorough in his preparation, calm in his approach and extremely personable. He is clever, thoughtful and level headed.’
Band 2
Lauren Sutherland KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘Lauren is fearless, tenacious and has meticulous attention to detail. She also easily builds rapport with clients and gains their trust. She has an unparalleled knowledge of relevant cases, however obscure.’
Alan Dewar KC – Ampersand Advocates
Douglas Ross KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘He is always well-prepared and goes the extra mile. A very calm and measured advocate with a very understated manner, and always treats others with respect.’
Una Doherty KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘Una is incredibly calm and instils confidence She is determined and dependable, and has the ability to cut straight through the superfluous and immediately identify the issues at the heart of an action.’
Vinit Khurana KC – Ampersand Advocates
Leading juniors
Band 1
James McConnell – Ampersand Advocates ‘A well respected junior. He is organised, extremely thorough and diligent. Excellent with clients and experts.’
Band 2
Fiona Drysdale – Ampersand Advocates ‘A diligent, perceptive and highly able junior.’
Jennifer Nicholson-White –Ampersand Advocates ‘She offers clear and focussed advice to clients and presents cases well in court. She is very personable, making her extremely easy to work with, yet is prepared to stick to her guns where appropriate and goes above and beyond for all clients.’
Shane Dundas – Ampersand Advocates ‘An outstanding advocate who is great to work with. He is responsive, proactive and excellent in court.’
Property, Planning and Construction
TIER 1
Ampersand Advocates ‘has a wide offering of quality advocates‘ and an excellent reputation for its expertise in planning and construction law matters. Laura-Anne Van Der Westhuizen KC is ‘a very impressive advocate‘ who provides ‘clear, considered and strategic advice‘ across a wide range of planning matters. Marcus McKay KC is viewed as ‘one of the best at the senior Bar in planning and environmental matters‘. Timothy Young is sought after for his solid track record in advising on construction contractual disputes and contentious property work, including crofting and agricultural issues. Nicholas McAndrew is ‘a first class junior, particularly when it comes to construction and engineering disputes‘.
Testimonials
Stable
‘Ampersand is very responsive and easy to work with.’
‘Ampersand is a strong stable with a fantastic choice of advocates.’
Leading silks
Band 1
Robert Howie KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘A superbly analytical and utterly top drawer silk who is excellent in court.’
Marcus McKay KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘Marcus is a very pragmatic silk, and he is extremely easy to work with. He presents cases in a clear and logical manner and is good at seeing the bigger picture.’
Malcolm Thomson KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘He is an exceptional advocate.’
Ailsa Wilson KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘A silk with a very strong planning law practice.’
Leading juniors
Band 1
Eoghainn MacLean – Ampersand Advocates
Timothy Young – Ampersand Advocates ‘He is a fierce advocate who you want on your side in a contentious matter.‘
Band 2
Nicholas McAndrew – Ampersand Advocates ‘An incredibly able junior with a very calm, measured and methodical way of approaching cases. He is conscientious, and clear and concise in his advocacy.’
Ross Anderson – Ampersand Advocates ‘He is an impressive court performer and provides solid commercial advice.’
Giles Reid – Ampersand Advocates ‘Giles has an exceptional knowledge of Scottish property law. He is diligent, attentive and very user-friendly.’
Employment
Aidan O’Neill KC – Ampersand Advocates ‘He is an excellent communicator and exceedingly bright. He is also wonderfully adept under pressure.’
Full listings, including all Scottish rankings can be viewed on the Legal 500 website here.
Back
Scott Clair
Since calling to the Bar as a Lord Hope Scholar in 2022, Scott Clair has built a strong practice anchored around professional liability, commercial litigation and public law. In 2024, he was appointed as Standing Junior Counsel to the Advocate General for Scotland (UK Government). In that capacity, he has advised and represented the UK Government in respect of a broad range of matters, ranging from a judicial review in relation to immigration law, to director’s disqualification proceedings.
Scott also has particular interest and experience in professional liability and regulation (especially claims against solicitors, advocates and healthcare professionals). As well as conducting litigation on behalf of professionals, he has appeared before fitness to practice panels. Scott is regularly instructed by the NHS in Scotland to advise on a wide range of matters, including clinical negligence claims, fatal accident inquiries and advice in relation to statutory and regulatory compliance. He has also carried out work as an ad hoc junior counsel to the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry. Although predominantly instructed on behalf of defenders, Scott also has experience of pursuing claims on behalf of pursuers (professional liability, commercial and property litigation). He regularly appears in the Court of Session and other courts and tribunals. He has appeared in several appeals and has appeared a number of times as sole counsel before the Inner House of the Court of Session.
Scott has tutored in a range of subjects, including public law, delict, commercial law, and evidence at the University of Edinburgh. He continues to retain an interest in legal education, as an accredited instructor for the Faculty of Advocates’ training for devils programme.
Scott is also a reporter for Session Cases, the most authoritative law reports in Scotland. He is also a member of the Faculty of Advocates’ Law Reform Committee and in that capacity has assisted with the preparation of consultation responses to the Scottish Government on behalf of the Faculty.
Back
Ayla Iridag
Ayla Iridag called to the bar after working as a solicitor for an International Law Firm, predominately in the fields of insurance and public law. Ayla specialises in actions arising from Health and Safety and Administrative Law matters. This includes personal injury and clinical negligence actions in both the Sheriff Court and Court of Session, as well as Fatal Accident Inquiries and Judicial Reviews.
Ayla’s public and administrative law practice is broad and examples of recent work include firearms licensing disputes, malicious prosecution and unlawful detention cases and orders under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Ayla has appeared in the Mental Health Tribunal. Ayla was appointed Standing Junior to the Office of the Advocate General in 2022 and in this role has been instructed by various government departments in actions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, petitions for Judicial Review and appeals against Health and Safety Prohibition Notices.
Ayla’s Health and Safety practice includes acting for insurers and commercial organisations in defending actions arising from workplace accidents; occupiers’ liability claims and road traffic accidents. Ayla is regularly instructed on behalf of health boards and medical organisations in respect of clinical negligence matters, often with a particular interest in mental health, as well as in Fatal Accident Inquiries across Scotland. Prior to calling to the bar, as a Solicitor and Devil, Ayla gained experience in health and safety prosecutions, including at trial. She has experience appearing in the criminal courts, including conducting commissions.
Ayla also has experience of regulatory proceedings, having conducted substantive hearings for the Nursing and Midwifery Council and Scottish Social Services Council.
Selected cases
Back
Katharine Muir
Katharine Muir called to the Bar in 2022 after 6 years as a solicitor in private practice. She has a varied civil practice which includes professional regulation, clinical negligence, product liability, judicial review, defamation, construction litigation and contractual disputes. She appears regularly in the Sheriff Courts and Court of Session and has been instructed in group proceedings.
Katharine has a particular interest in product liability. She has worked on some of the most high-profile product liability cases in Scotland as solicitor and since coming to the Bar. She has also advised manufacturers on product compliance and safety, labelling and advertising.
Back
