“Ampersand’s advocates attract praise for their ‘excellent depth and breadth of knowledge’” – in latest Legal 500 UK Bar listings
Ampersand is delighted to be once again be recommended as a top-tier set by The Legal 500 UK Bar Directory in their latest listings for 2018 published today.
The guide says “Ampersand’s advocates attract praise for their ‘excellent depth and breadth of knowledge’ across a range of areas, particularly in the field of personal injury and clinical negligence. Practitioners also have expertise in planning, commercial, property and regulatory law. The ‘very user-friendly’ and ‘proactive’ Alan Moffat (‘when there are challenges he finds a solution’) leads the ‘efficient, friendly and helpful’ clerking team.”
Ampersand has 34 listings across 8 areas of practice in the Legal 500 UK 2018 guide.
Civil liberties, human rights, public inquiries, and public and administrative law (including local government)
Practitioners at Ampersand report an uptick in cases involving human rights matters, alongside public inquiry work and EU law cases. Members of the stable continue to act in the long-running Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry.
Aidan O’Neill QC – ‘Immensely intelligent and tremendous on his feet.’
Dorothy Bain QC – ‘Her practice covers the purview of civil and public law matters.’
Douglas Ross QC – ‘Intellectual, analytical, perceptive and thorough.’
Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen – ‘She is diligent and industrious.’
Commercial litigation
Ampersand’s practitioners are instructed across a broad spectrum of commercial disputes. Recent case highlights include up-and-coming junior Giles Reid appearing in the Court of Session in a matter relating to the enforcement of a judgment made in a Belgian court; the Court of Session found the enforcement of a demand for payment could not take place due to a lacunae in the law.
Alan Dewar QC – ‘Highly experienced across a range of commercial disputes.’
Craig Sandison QC – ‘A brilliant commercial silk.’
Robert Howie QC – ‘Exceptionally persuasive on his feet.’
Eoghainn MacLean – ‘Enthusiastic and conscientious.’
Giles Reid – ‘He has remarkable oral advocacy skills.’
Usman Tariq – ‘Very good on his feet.’
Company and insolvency
Ampersand’s advocates are instructed across a range of liquidation and insolvency matters, including director disqualifications, shareholder disputes and asset recovery matters.
David Sellar QC – ‘His knowledge of insolvency law is outstanding.’
Employment
Ampersand’s recent caseload includes unfair dismissal cases, TUPE and discrimination matters.
Russell Bradley – ‘He is proactive, commercial and precise.’
Intellectual property, information technology and media
In 2017, Usman Tariq at Ampersand successfully represented the respondents in CCHG Ltd (t/a Vaporized) v Vapouriz, an appeal resulting from a dispute between two prominent UK e-cigarette retailers over their respective trade marks; this case marked the first time the Court of Session heard an appeal from the UK Intellectual Property Office under the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Craig Sandison QC – ‘His practice includes trade mark disputes and defamation matters.’
Usman Tariq – ‘He has the ear of the court.’
Personal injury and medical negligence
Ampersand has ‘excellent depth and breadth of knowledge’ across the medical negligence and personal injury fields, with members handling a broad range of matters including birth injuries, brain and spinal injuries, cerebral palsy claims, as well as fatal and catastrophic injuries.
David Stephenson QC – ‘Very well known for representing NHS bodies in clinical malpractice matters.’
Douglas Ross QC – ‘He has encyclopaedic legal knowledge.’
Euan Mackenzie QC – ‘Highly methodical and brilliant in court.’
Graham Primrose QC – ‘Very experienced in personal injury reparation cases.’
Lisa Henderson QC – ‘She is extremely hardworking, with extensive experience in high-value personal injury cases.’
Lauren Sutherland QC – ‘She is a very conscientious and personable silk.’
Maria Maguire QC – ‘A formidable advocate who commands respect.’
Simon Di Rollo QC – ‘An expert on clinical negligence matters.’
Archie MacSporran – ‘Recommended for cerebral palsy and brain injury cases.’
Brian Fitzpatrick – ‘A tenacious negotiator.’
Christian Marney – ‘Robust and intellectual.’
Fiona Drysdale – ‘Recommended for catastrophic injury cases arising from road traffic accidents and medical negligence.’
James Dawson – ‘He has a very analytical eye.’
Una Doherty – ‘A high-calibre advocate.’
Planning, environmental and licensing
Members of Ampersand have solid experience in planning and environmental law matters. Energy and infrastructure projects form core areas of instruction for the team, with recent cases pertaining to challenges to wind farm and power line developments.
Ailsa Wilson QC – ‘A resourceful and determined advocate.’
Malcolm Thomson QC – ‘He commands the respect of the bench.’
Marcus McKay QC – ‘He is very experienced in renewable energy matters.’
Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen – ‘A safe pair of hands.’
Property, construction and agriculture
Practitioners at Ampersand have expertise in contractual matters as well as landlord and tenant disputes, among other areas.
Robert Howie QC – ‘He holds the ear of the judiciary.’
Eoghainn MacLean – ‘A very meticulous advocate.’
Full listings can be viewed here.
Back
Aidan O’Neill QC is Lawyer of the Week in The Times
Aidan O’Neill QC has been featured as “Lawyer of the Week” in The Times. Aidan acted for a cross-party group of politicians who have been given permission by Scotland’s highest court, the Court of Session, to take their case — that the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and halt Brexit by a parliamentary vote — to the European Court of Justice. To read the article in full, please see here
Back
Andy Wightman MSP and others v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2018] CSIH 62
The Court of Session ruled that a question about whether the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union can be revoked should be answered by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
A judicial review raised by a group of Scottish, UK and European politicians sought clarification on when and how the UK notification to leave the European Union (EU) could be unilaterally revoked before the two-year Brexit deadline on 29 March 2019, with the effect that the UK would remain in the EU.
The petitioners argued that the issue should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for advice on European law. At first instance, the judge declined to refer the case to the CJEU, but three appeal judges have now reversed that decision.
The judge presiding over the original Judicial Review had ruled that: the issue was hypothetical as the UK Government did not intend to revoke the notification to leave the EU; the matter encroached upon parliamentary sovereignty and was out with the Court’s jurisdiction; and the conditions for a reference to the CJEU had not been met.
However, the appeal judges noted that matters had since moved on, with the passing of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 13 of the 2018 Act sets out how parliamentary approval is to be sought once the negotiations between the UK Government and the EU Council conclude.
The withdrawal agreement can only be ratified if it has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons and been debated in the House of Lords. If no approval is forthcoming, the Government must state how they propose to proceed with negotiations.
If the Prime Minister states, prior to 21 January 2019, that no agreement in principle can be reached, the Government must, once again, state how they propose to proceed and must bring that proposal before both Houses.
The petitioners sought a ruling on whether there was another legally valid choice – that of revoking the notification, with the UK remaining in the EU.
The petitioners argued that the issue was directly relevant to forthcoming parliamentary votes. If a decision to remain in the EU was available as a matter of EU law, the UK Parliament could pursue that option irrespective of Government policy.
Responding, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU argued that the question was not only hypothetical, but that an attempt to have the court influence the debate or vote was a dangerous encroachment on the sovereignty of Parliament.
However, the appeal judges said that the courts exist as one of the three pillars of the state to provide rulings on what the law is and how it should be applied; and that the question raised by the petitioners was both practical and competent.
They agreed to refer the case to the CJEU for a preliminary hearing seeking advice on EU law.
In their draft reference to the CJEU, they ask: “Where a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, does EU law permit that notice to be revoked unilaterally by the notifying Member State; and, if so, subject to what conditions and with what effect relative to the Member State remaining within the EU?”.
The Court of Session will consider the CJEU’s advice before issuing a final ruling.
The full judgment is available on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website.
Aidan O’Neill QC, instructed by Balfour + Manson LLP for Petitioners
Back
Andy Wightman MSP and others v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU
The Court of Session has ruled that a question about whether the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union can be revoked should be answered by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
A judicial review raised by a group of Scottish, UK and European politicians sought clarification on when and how the UK notification to leave the European Union (EU) could be unilaterally revoked before the two-year Brexit deadline on 29 March 2019, with the effect that the UK would remain in the EU.
Lead by Ampersand’s Aidan O’Neill QC, instructed by Balfour + Manson LLP, the petitioners argued that the issue should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for advice on European law. At first instance, the judge declined to refer the case to the CJEU, but three appeal judges have now reversed that decision.
The judge presiding over the original Judicial Review had ruled that: the issue was hypothetical as the UK Government did not intend to revoke the notification to leave the EU; the matter encroached upon parliamentary sovereignty and was out with the Court’s jurisdiction; and the conditions for a reference to the CJEU had not been met.
However, the appeal judges noted that matters had since moved on, with the passing of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Section 13 of the 2018 Act sets out how parliamentary approval is to be sought once the negotiations between the UK Government and the EU Council conclude.
The withdrawal agreement can only be ratified if it has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons and been debated in the House of Lords. If no approval is forthcoming, the Government must state how they propose to proceed with negotiations.
If the Prime Minister states, prior to 21 January 2019, that no agreement in principle can be reached, the Government must, once again, state how they propose to proceed and must bring that proposal before both Houses.
The petitioners sought a ruling on whether there was another legally valid choice – that of revoking the notification, with the UK remaining in the EU.
The petitioners argued that the issue was directly relevant to forthcoming parliamentary votes. If a decision to remain in the EU was available as a matter of EU law, the UK Parliament could pursue that option irrespective of Government policy.
Responding, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU argued that the question was not only hypothetical, but that an attempt to have the court influence the debate or vote was a dangerous encroachment on the sovereignty of Parliament.
However, the appeal judges said that the courts exist as one of the three pillars of the state to provide rulings on what the law is and how it should be applied; and that the question raised by the petitioners was both practical and competent.
They agreed to refer the case to the CJEU for a preliminary hearing seeking advice on EU law.
In their draft reference to the CJEU, they ask: “Where a Member State has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, does EU law permit that notice to be revoked unilaterally by the notifying Member State; and, if so, subject to what conditions and with what effect relative to the Member State remaining within the EU?”.
The Court of Session will consider the CJEU’s advice before issuing a final ruling.
The full judgment is available on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website.
Back
FOA & Royal College of Physicians event – Doctors, Lawyers and Wolves: Till death do us part
Faculty of Advocates and Royal College of Physicians event
The Faculty of Advocates is teaming up again with the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in a second medico-legal debate, examining assisted suicide.
In the first collaboration earlier this year, the spotlight fell on the implications and lessons of the Bawa-Garba case, in which a doctor was convicted of the manslaughter of a six-year-old boy by gross negligence and given a two-year suspended jail sentence.
The next event in the Doctors, Lawyers and Wolves series will see Ampersand’s David Stephenson QC, a specialist in medical law, joining a panel of medical experts to discuss, “Till Death Do Us Part”. Issues to be raised include legal aspects of end-of-life care and whether the law needs to be changed to permit physician assisted suicide.
Mr Stephenson said: “Assisted suicide is an issue that will not go away, despite failed attempts to legislate in both Scotland and England. The position in Scotland is unsatisfactory in light of the Inner House decision in Ross v Lord Advocate 2016 SC 502. The case suggests assistance will not in some circumstances be criminal in Scotland. If so, then the limits of legality and the regulation of practice in the interests of affected individuals and the wider public is a matter of acute concern.”
The event is on Wednesday, 12 September, from 6pm at the RCPE’s Great Hall in Queen Street, Edinburgh
See the Royal College of Physician’s website for full details and how to book here.
Back
Law Society of Scotland event: Leading Legal Excellence Annual Conference 2018
Organised by the Law Society of Scotland
Tackle the complex questions of the Scottish legal landscape.
Join speakers and delegates from the legal profession, business, politics and civic Scotland this October to consider how to respond to the opportunities and challenges of today and tomorrow.
Ampersand’s Aidan O’Neill QC is part of a stellar line-up of speakers:
- The President of the UK Supreme Court Baroness Hale of Richmond
- Leading authority on EU and UK constitutional law Aidan O’Neill QC
- Harvard Law School professor Dr Heidi Gardner
- Former senior Scottish and UK judge and Convenor of the Crossbench peers Lord Hope of Craighead
Full details, including the programme and how to book can be found on the Law Society of Scotland’s website here.
Back
