Ampersand Advocates Top Rankings success in latest Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide
Ampersand has 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 2021.
Ampersand received 58 listings across 14 areas of practice, ranking as top tier (band 1) in Clinical Negligence as a Set, and band 2 in Administrative & Public law, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, Commercial Dispute Resolution, Planning & Environment, Personal Injury and Restructuring/Insolvency as a Set. 5 members are noted as “star individuals”.
Noted as a Band 1 set for Clinical Negligence, “Ampersand Advocates retains its reputation as a market-leading stable for clinical negligence matters, garnering praise from instructing solicitors who describe it as “a well-organised stable with a good range of excellent advocates.” 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 multi-party actions stemming from the use of medical equipment, and several of its advocates have recently been involved in the Scottish Mesh Litigation, a class action in which over 500 claims were brought against the NHS in connection with allegedly defective vaginal mesh.”. Our rankings include 2 “Star Individuals”, Maria Maguire QC and David Stephenson QC, with 9 further silks and 6 juniors also ranked – Simon Bowie QC, Jamie Dawson QC, Simon Di Rollo QC, Una Doherty QC, Lisa Henderson QC, Vinit Khurana QC, Geoffrey Mitchell QC, Graham Pimrose QC, Lauren Sutherland QC, Fiona Drysdale, Mark Fitzpatrick, Archie MacSporran, James McConnell, Paul Reid and Phil Stuart.
Band 2 listings include Administrative & Public Law where Ampersand is praised “houses 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 QC, along with Douglas Ross QC, Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen and Paul Reid.
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 QC and Douglas Ross QC.
In Commercial Dispute Resolution Chambers state Ampersand is “well renowned for its consistent involvement in high-profile commercial disputes. The stable offers a large team comprising highly rated advocates at the senior and junior level. 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 QC, Craig Sandison QC, Ross Anderson, Graeme Hawkes, Giles Reid, Paul Reid, Usman Tariq and Tim Young.
Within Personal Injury Ampersand “houses a number of dedicated senior and junior advocates, and instructing solicitors praise the “strength and depth of counsel available at the stable.” 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 RTAs and workplace accidents. The team is also well regarded for its expertise in complex product liability and occupier’s 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.” Rankings include “Star Individuals” Maria Maguire QC and Graham Primrose QC with other ranked Dorothy Bain QC, Isla Davie QC, Simon Di Rollo QC, Lisa Henderson QC, Douglas Ross QC, Chris Marney and Louise Milligan.
Ampersand’s strong Planning & Environment team was recognised as “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 the public inquires into the development of the former Royal High School in Edinburgh and the proposed Coul Links golf course development. One source says: “The chambers is excellent in terms of the calibre of advocates.””. Rankings include Malcolm Thomson QC as “Star Individual”, Marcus McKay QC, Ailsa Wilson QC and Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen.
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 QC and Usman Tariq.
There are individual rankings in Real Estate for Robert Howie QC, Craig Sandison QC, Ross Anderson, Giles Reid and Tim Young; Agriculture and Rural Affairs for Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen; Employment for Russell Bradley, Information Technology and Intellectual Property for Usman Tariq; Professional Negligence for Chris Marney and Paul Reid; and Tax for Ross Anderson.
The Ampersand clerks receive wide praise being described as “professional, friendly and accommodating at all times…. very responsive… they make every effort to accommodate almost impossible demands” and that Ampersand “is an extremely well run and efficient stable”.
The full rankings can be viewed on the Chambers and Partners website here.
Back
Mark Boni
Mark Boni called to the Bar in 2020, having qualified as a solicitor in 2014. Since 2022, Mark has been ranked by Legal 500 as a tier 2 leading junior in commercial disputes and since 2024 has been ranked as a tier 1 leading junior in private client and family disputes. In the UK Bar Guide 2025, Chamber & Partners identified him as an “up and coming” junior counsel in commercial dispute resolution as well as real estate litigation.
Mark has experience in a wide range of commercial and private law litigation, with a particular interest in contractual and property disputes, prescription, personal insolvency and private client litigation.
He regularly appears for pursuers and defenders at proofs, debates, procedural hearings, opposed motions and interim orders hearings.
Mark has experience, both as a solicitor and at the Bar, of litigating in the Sheriff Courts, Sheriff Appeal Court, Lands Tribunal, Court of Session (Outer and Inner Houses) as well as the UK Supreme Court. Mark also has experience in alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation.
Whilst devilling, Mark was a Lord Hope Scholar and was involved in a variety of complex and high value cases, including professional negligence claims and intellectual property actions.
Since 2012, Mark has tutored part-time at the University of Edinburgh. He presently tutors “Commercial Law” and “Contract and Unjustified Enrichment” and previously tutored “Public Law of the UK and Scotland” and “Public Law and Individual Rights”.
Mark wrote the reissue edition of “Prescription and Limitation” in the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia (published 2023) and has rewritten the Scottish prescription and limitation online content for Lexis+.
Back
Euan Scott
Euan Scott called to the Bar in 2020 having worked in one of Scotland’s leading litigation firms.
He has a broad civil practice with a particular focus on medical and professional negligence, and commercial dispute resolution (with his experience concentrating on commercial contract disputes, property disputes, contentious construction and insurance).
He also has an interest in media law and insolvency issues and has extensive experience of public inquiries.
Euan was appointed as Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Government in 2022
Back
Aidan O’Neill QC featured in The Lawyer’s Hot 100
Ampersand’s Aidan O’Neill QC is featured in The Lawyer’s Hot 100 list published today. The prestigious list – from leading UK legal magazine The Lawyer – celebrates the work of the top 100 lawyers in the UK from private practice, in-house and the Bar. The list, which is published annually, recognises extraordinary lawyers who have completed ground-breaking work in the past 12 months.
Aidan’s involvement in “the biggest Brexit-related cases” has been recognised by The Lawyer Hot 100. Aidan was victorious back in December 2018 before the Full Court (25 judges) of the European Court of Justice in the case of Wightman, to decide whether Article 50 could be revoked. He also successfully appeared before the 11-judge bench of the UK Supreme Court in September 2019 in the case of Miller 2/Cherry representing Joanna Cherry QC where he unanimously persuaded it uphold the ruling of the Inner House of the Court of Session regarding Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament. The Lawyer commented: “While Brexit had been burning in the backs of everyone’s minds during 2019, Aidan O’Neill QC was holding the torch at the front.”
The full article is available here (paywall).
Back
‘Silk of the Year’ hat-trick for Aidan O’Neill QC
Congratulations to Ampersand’s Aidan O’Neill QC, who has retained his title as Silk of the Year at the Law Awards of Scotland.
Aidan has been in many high profile cases in the past year including successes in the so-called Scottish Brexit case (Wightman v Secretary of State) and proroguing of Parliament case (Cherry and others v Advocate General for Scotland).
While an outright winner in 2017, Aidan shared the award in 2018 with solicitor-advocate, John Scott, QC. This year, as the outright winner, makes it 3 out of 3 for Aidan.
Back
Inner House confirms Serco’s actions were lawful in seeking to recover possession of property provided to failed asylum seekers and concluded that Serco was not acting as a hybrid public authority
Ali (Iraq) v Serco Ltd [2019] CSIH 54
Facts
The reclaimer is a failed asylum seeker, whose appeal rights became exhausted in November 2017. The reclaimer was provided with accommodation while her asylum claim was being determined. Nearly 6 months after the asylum claim was refused. the Secretary of State served notice that asylum support and accommodation would be withdrawn. The reclaimer was to quit her accommodation by 13 June 2018. Persons provided with asylum support accommodation are excluded from the protection against eviction without court order in terms of s.23 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (“1984 Act”). A form of support is available to failed asylum seekers in terms of s.4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“1999 Act”) if they meet certain criteria. The reclaimer argued that notwithstanding (i) her asylum claim had been refused, (ii) persons provided with asylum support accommodation were excluded from the terms of s.23 of the 1984 Act, and (iii) the availability of support in terms of s.4(2) of the 1999, it was unlawful for Serco to seek to recover possession of property without a court order.
Issues
The Court identified 4 key issues:
- Did the reclaimer have a right under common law preventing eviction without court order?
- Did the reclaimer have a right akin to a lease created by virtue of a jus quaesitum tertio preventing eviction without court order?
- Would eviction without a court order breach the reclaimer’s rights under Articles 3 or 8 of the ECHR?
- Was the Lord Ordinary correct to find that Serco were a ‘hybrid public authority’ for the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Decision
Issue 1 – A common law right?
The first issue had not been argued in front of the Lord Ordinary, but the Inner House considered its substance. The reclaimer accepted that she was excluded from the statutory protection against eviction without court order. However, the statute expressly preserved any existing common law rights. The reclaimer argued that there was a right at Scots common law that prevented eviction without court order. In Conway v Glasgow City Council, however, the only preserved common law right was said to be reasonable notice. There was a weight of Inner House authority against the contention that eviction of contractual occupiers (rather than leaseholders) without court order was per se unlawful at common law. The reclaimer’s occupancy was precarious from the outset. No court process was required at common law. Accordingly, the reclaimer’s argument was rejected (at [43] – [46]).
Issue 2 – A jus quaesitum tertio?
This argument was not advanced to the Lord Ordinary, but sought to argue that Home Secretary and Serco had agreed a contract to benefit the reclaimer, and the reclaimer could enforce this agreement. The effect was said to be that a right akin to a lease was created and thus eviction without court order would be unlawful. The Court decisively rejected this argument (at [47]). Crucially, the reclaimer was averred to be in a contractual relationship directly with Serco, and the reclaimer’s argument, if correct, would have directly contradicted the specific terms of that agreement.
Issue 3 – Article 3 or 8 breach?
The Court dismissed the case under Articles 3 and 8 as having no merit (at [48]). The threat of lawful eviction could not reach the minimum severity threshold of Article 3. The Court noted that support is available under s.4 of the 1999 Act for failed asylum seekers in certain situations. The refusal or withdrawal of s.4 support carries a right of appeal. The Court raised the possibility of challenging the Secretary of State’s decision to issue a statutory notice to quit by way of judicial review, combined with interim interdict. In respect of Article 8, there were various ways in which a failed asylum seeker could raise the question of proportionality without the necessity of an eviction action having to be raised against them. Lord Hodge’s observations in R(N) v Lewisham LBC were approved as being applicable to this context.
Issue 4 – Hybrid public authority
The Lord Ordinary had concluded that Serco were exercising “functions of a public nature” and were thus would have to comply with Convention rights. The Inner House disagreed (at [52]). Fundamentally, the Court held that the exercise of the public law function remains with the Secretary of State; Serco were exercising private law functions. The Secretary of State remains answerable for the public law duty to arrange for the provision of accommodation to asylum seekers. Serco were simply performing a service under contract. Accordingly the cross appeal was allowed (at [58]).
Analysis
The Inner House rejected each of the reclaimer’s arguments. Neither Serco, nor the Home Secretary, acted unlawfully in any of the ways alleged. Moreover, Serco was not acting as a ‘hybrid public authority’.
Contrary to some commentary in the aftermath of the decision, the effect of this ruling was not that the Home Secretary can ‘outsource its statutory and international legal obligations’. Quite the reverse. As noted at [56], “the state cannot absolve itself of responsibility for such public law duties as the provision of accommodation to asylum seekers by delegating its responsibility to private bodies”.
Nor is it the case that the government can simply ‘contract out of the Human Rights Act’. Instead, as the Court noted, “responsibility for the exercise of the public law duty is not delegated, but remains with the Home Secretary”. What this means is that in this context a public law challenge is properly made against the Home Secretary, who decides whether support should be provided, and not against a private contractor.
The reality is, as the Court noted at [48], that when an asylum claim is refused the person is expected to leave the UK. If there are good reasons why a person simply cannot leave, then statutory support is available. Parliament decided to exclude those in asylum support accommodation from the statutory protection against eviction without court order that other “residential occupiers” have. In the circumstances, the Court was left with little option but to refuse the reclaiming motion.
Opinion of Inner House can be viewed here.
Representation
Ampersand’s Michael Way was instructed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondent at Note of Argument stage in the reclaiming motion and in related interdict proceedings.
Back
