Ampersand Advocates Celebrates Outstanding 2026 Chambers & Partners Rankings

Ampersand Advocates is proud to celebrate another outstanding year in the Chambers and Partners UK Bar 2026 rankings published date, confirming its position as one of the most highly regarded and comprehensive sets at the Scottish Bar.

This year, Ampersand and its members secures 12 set rankings and an impressive 99 individual rankings across 25 practice areas, including recognition across the London Bar and All Circuits. The stable is further honoured with five Star Individuals, underscoring its depth and quality.

Set Rankings
Ampersand Advocates is ranked as a set in the following areas:

Band 1:

Band 2:

Practice Areas and Ranked Members

Administrative & Public Law – Band 2
Ranked Members:
Aidan O’Neill KC, Douglas Ross KC, Ian S. Forrester KC, Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen KC, Michael Way, Paul Reid KC, Timothy Young, Usman Tariq KC

Star Individual: Aidan O’Neill KC

Highlight: Appearing in landmark constitutional and equality law cases before the Supreme Court and Court of Session.

Civil Liberties & Human Rights – Band 2
Ranked Members:
Aidan O’Neill KC, Douglas Ross KC, Usman Tariq KC

Highlight: Leading advocates in major human rights and discrimination cases, including Billy Graham Evangelistic Association v SMG (UK) Ltd.

Clinical Negligence – Band 1
Ranked Members:
Euan Mackenzie KC, Fiona Drysdale KC, Geoffrey Mitchell KC, Graham Primrose KC, Isla Davie KC, James McConnell KC, Jamie Dawson KC, Jennifer Nicholson-White, Lauren Sutherland KC, Lisa Henderson KC, Maria Maguire KC, Mark Fitzpatrick, Shane Dundas, Simon Bowie KC, Una Doherty KC, Vinit Khurana KC

Star Individual: Maria Maguire KC

Highlight: Described as “the premier stable for clinical negligence in Scotland”, with members leading in complex medical and catastrophic injury cases.

Commercial Dispute Resolution – Band 2
Ranked Members:
Eoghainn MacLean, Giles Reid, Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen KC, Mark Boni, Michael Way, Nicholas McAndrew, Robert Howie KC, Ross G. Anderson, Timothy Young, Usman Tariq KC

Highlight: Recognised for “depth and breadth across civil litigation”, with expertise in commercial, contract, and intellectual property disputes.

Company

Ranked Members:
Ross G. Anderson, Timothy Young

Highlight: Expertise in shareholder and director disputes, representing corporate entities and institutions.

Construction – Band 2
Ranked Members:
Nicholas McAndrew, Robert Howie KC, Timothy Young

Highlight: Trusted for handling large-scale building and delay disputes, including Greater Glasgow Health Board v Multiplex.

Employment

Ranked Members:
Aidan O’Neill KC

Highlight: Leading counsel in discrimination and constitutional employment cases.

Immigration

Ranked Members:
Michael Way

Highlight: Recognised for expertise in judicial reviews and appeals involving immigration and asylum.

Information Technology

Ranked Members:
Usman Tariq KC

Highlight: Specialist in software, data, and technology-related litigation.

Intellectual Property

Ranked Members:
Usman Tariq KC

Highlight: Recognised for IP and tech sector disputes and advisory work.

Media Law

Ranked Members:
Usman Tariq KC

Highlight: Acts in defamation, reputation, and privacy cases.

Personal Injury – Band 1
Ranked Members:
Alan Cowan, Christian Marney, Douglas Ross KC, Euan Mackenzie KC, Usman Tariq KC, Isla Davie KC, Jennifer Nicholson-White, Lisa Henderson KC, Maria Maguire KC, Shane Dundas, Simon Di Rollo KC

Star Individuals: Graham Primrose KC, Maria Maguire KC

Highlight: Described as “a formidable team of injury specialists”, acting in high-value, complex personal injury claims across Scotland.

Planning & Environment – Band 1
Ranked Members:
Ailsa Wilson KC, Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen KC, Marcus McKay KC, Nicholas McAndrew

Highlight: Commended for expertise in renewable energy, development planning, and environmental judicial review.

Product Liability

Ranked Members:
Paul Reid KC

Highlight: Recognised for handling complex product and regulatory disputes.

Professional Discipline

Ranked Members:
Paul Reid KC, Scott Clair

Highlight: Act for regulators and professionals in high-stakes disciplinary proceedings.

Professional Negligence – Band 2
Ranked Members:
Paul Reid KC, Scott Clair, Usman Tariq KC

Highlight: Expertise across financial, legal, and technical negligence claims.

Public & Fatal Accident Inquiries – Band 1
Ranked Members:
Ayla Iridag, Fiona Drysdale KC, Geoffrey Mitchell KC, Isla Davie KC, James McConnell KC, Jamie Dawson KC, Jennifer Nicholson-White, Lisa Henderson KC, Michael Way, Paul Reid KC, Shane Dundas, Simon Bowie KC, Susanne Tanner KC, Una Doherty KC

Highlight: Market leader in public inquiries including the UK and Scottish COVID-19 Inquiries, and the Infected Blood Inquiry.

Real Estate Litigation – Band 2
Ranked Members:
Giles Reid, Mark Boni, Michael Way, Robert Howie KC, Ross G. Anderson, Timothy Young

Highlight: Leading expertise in commercial property and access rights disputes.

Restructuring/Insolvency – Band 2
Ranked Members:
Robert Howie KC, Ross G. Anderson, Sheana Campbell, Usman Tariq KC

Highlight: Praised for “excellent knowledge and expertise” in insolvency, breach of duty, and cross-border matters.

Tax – Band 1
Ranked Members:
Julian Ghosh KC, Ross G. Anderson

Star Individual: Julian Ghosh KC

Highlight: Recognised as a Star Individual for Tax (London Bar), handling major tax appeals and IR35 cases such as McCann Media Ltd v HMRC.

Independent Investigations – All Circuits (Band 2)
Ranked Member:
Susanne Tanner KC

Highlight: Recognised across the UK for her leadership in independent investigations and inquiries.

European Law – London Bar (Band 2)
Ranked Member:
Aidan O’Neill KC

Highlight: Noted for constitutional and EU law expertise bridging the Scottish and London Bars.

Tax – London Bar & Private Client
Ranked Member:
Julian Ghosh KC

Highlight: Acknowledged as one of the UK’s foremost tax specialists.

Star Individuals

Ampersand Advocates proudly celebrates its five Star Individuals recognised for exceptional excellence and leadership:

Clerking Excellence

Ampersand’s clerking team, led by Alan Moffat, is again commended for professionalism, responsiveness, and efficiency.

“Second to none.”
“Depth and breadth across all disciplines.”
“Incredibly responsive and professional.”

The clerks’ deep understanding of clients’ needs continues to be a cornerstone of Ampersand’s success.

Overall Recognition

With 99 individual rankings, five Star Individuals, and 12 ranked practice areas, Ampersand Advocates cements its reputation as one of Scotland’s leading stable for excellence across the civil Bar. Ampersand stands out for its depth, versatility, and advocacy excellence.

You can view the full rankings and detailed individual feedback here.

Back

Peter Gasper v The Partners Of Tain & Fearns Medical Practice and another [2025] CSOH 96

This was a clinical negligence, QOCS case in the Court of Session in which the pursuer accepted a tender after an 8 month delay.  The defenders moved for the expenses of process from the date of the tender under RCS 41B.2(2)(b) on the ground of unreasonable delay. Although there has been much judicial consideration of the QOCS provisions in the sheriff court, there has been little on this specific issue and none in the court of session. Lord Braid provides some helpful comments on the factors he considered relevant in assessing delay, but also on the operation of the 75% cap rule under RCS 41B.3 (2)(b).

Ampersand’s Simon Bowie KC appeared for the defender.

Lord Braid’s Opinion can be viewed here.

Back

Ampersand Advocates Celebrates Top-Tier Recognition in 2026 Legal 500 Rankings

Ampersand Advocates has once again secured its position among Scotland’s leading sets of counsel in the newly released 2026 edition of The Legal 500 United Kingdom Bar Guide.  The rankings, published today, reaffirm Ampersand’s reputation for excellence across a broad spectrum of legal disciplines. 

In the 2026 guide, Ampersand Advocates has been ranked in Tier 1 for Administrative and Public Law, Personal Injury and Medical Negligence and Property, Planning and Construction. The set also achieved a Tier 2 ranking in Commercial Disputes, reflecting its growing influence and expertise in high-value and complex litigation. 

Administrative and Public Law (Tier 1) Ampersand’s offering is praised for handling high-stakes judicial reviews and public inquiries, with commentators highlighting our members ability to command respect at the highest levels of the judiciary. Ampersand’s expertise in this area is highlighted by the rankings of Aidan O’Neill KC,  Douglas Ross KC, Susanne Tanner KC, Paul Reid KC and Usman Tariq KC (2024 silk).  The stable’s juniors Timothy Young and Ross Anderson are also recognised, with Michael Way and Scott Clair noted as rising stars.   

Personal Injury and Medical Negligence (Tier 1) An impressive roster of silks includes Simon Bowie KC, Una Doherty KC, Lisa Henderson KC, Euan Mackenzie KC, Maria Maguire KC, Geoffrey Mitchell KC, Graham Primrose KC, Lauren Sutherland KC, Alan Dewar KC, Vinit Khurana KC, Douglas Ross KC and James McConnell KC. Jennifer Nicholson-White, Ayla Iridag, and Shane Dundas are recognised as leading juniors.   

Property, Planning and Construction (Tier 1) Robert Howie KC, Ailsa Wilson KC, Marcus McKay KC, and Laura-Anne Van Der Westhuizen KC are all ranked as leading silks. Eoghainn MacLean, Nicholas McAndrew, Ross Anderson,Timothy Young, Giles Reid and Louise Cockburn are recognised as leading juniors. 

Commercial Disputes (Tier 2) The stable’s commercial disputes team is led by silks Robert Howie KC, Laura-Anne Van Der Westhuizen KC, Paul Reid KC  and Usman Tariq KC (2024 silk).  Ross Anderson, Eoghainn MacLean, Mark Boni, Timothy Young, Giles Reid and Nicholas McAndrew are ranked as leading juniors, with Michael Way noted as a rising star.  

Crime and Regulatory (leading set) The stable has achieved acknowledgement in this category for 2026 as a leading set with a number of members ranked as leading silks including Isla Davie KC, Jamie Dawson KC, Lisa Henderson KC, Geoffrey Mitchell KC, Paul Reid KC, Simon Bowie KC, Una Doherty KC, Fiona Drysdale KC, Susanne Tanner KC, James McConnell KC (2024 silk) and Usman Tariq (2024 silk).  Jenny Nicholson-White, Shane Dundas and Ayla Iridag are ranked as leading juniors, with Michael Way noted as a rising star.  

Ampersand Advocates is also recommended in the Employment and Private Client and Family categories, with Aidan O’Neill KC ranked as a leading silk in Employment and Mark Boni  recognised as a leading junior in Private Client and Family. 

Under Alan Moffat’s leadership, the clerking team was commended for its exceptional efficiency, prompt communication, and forward-thinking approach. 

These rankings highlight Ampersand’s continued commitment to delivering outstanding advocacy and legal insight across Scotland’s distinct legal landscape. 

Full listings, for all of Ampersand’s rankings can be viewed on the Legal 500 website  here. 

 

 

Back

David Downie v Fife Health Board

Ampersand’s James McConnell K.C. acted for the defenders in the latest round of this litigation.  The case came before the Sheriff Appeal Court on a question about the competency of the pursuer’s proposed appeal.  Two of the three grounds of appeal were found to be competent, but the pursuer’s first ground of appeal was refused as incompetent.

The Opinion of Sheriff Principal Anwar can be found here.

Back

Ampersand Advocates Clinical Negligence Seminar 2025

*** Fully booked – waiting list in operation ***

Ampersand Advocates is delighted to confirm our Clinical Negligence seminar for 2025. This afternoon half day event held in-person at the Hawthorndean Lecture Theatre at the National Galleries on the Mound, Edinburgh will attract 3 hours of CPD and will be followed by a drinks and social hour.

We hope to finalise the programme shortly. The theme this year is “Compassion in Clinical Negligence: Securing Better Outcomes in Evidence, Liability, and Rehabilitation”. Amongst legal talks we have at least one expert lined up.

To be added to the waiting list, please use this online form: https://forms.office.com/e/2FZEB7bjnT, or scan the QR code below. Any queries, please email: ampersand.events@advocates.org.uk.

As part of our commitment to this area of practice there is no charge for practitioners attending this event.

Numbers are strictly limited, allocated on a first come first serve basis. As in previous years, we are now operating a waiting list as the event is fully subscribed.

Back

DS V NHS Grampian

Paul Reid KC and Shane Dundas of Ampersand Advocates successfully acted for NHS Grampian (the defender, respondent and cross-appellant) (“the respondent”) in a recent appeal concerning allegations of clinical negligence directed against a Consultant Neuroradiologist.

The pursuer, appellant and cross-respondent (“the appellant”) had been experiencing symptoms of nausea, headaches, pins and needles, tinnitus and visual disturbances. Her GP referred her for an MRI scan of her brain to investigate the underlying cause of her symptoms. In January 2013 the scan was reviewed by a Consultant Neuroradiologist, who reported that no abnormalities were present.

As her symptoms persisted, the appellant underwent another MRI scan in 2015. On that occasion, the neuroradiologist reporting on the scan identified the presence of a pineal cyst. The cyst had not been identified on the reporting of the 2013 scan but, in retrospect, it had been present on the earlier imaging. The appellant underwent surgery for the removal of the cyst which was performed by a neurosurgeon in Germany in July 2015. Following surgery, the appellant reported an improvement in her symptoms.

The appellant brought an action for damages against NHS Grampian alleging that Dr Robb, Consultant Neuroradiologist had breached her duty of care in failing to identify and report on the pineal cyst which had been present on the initial MRI scan. The appellant contended that, had the cyst been identified at that time, she would have undergone surgical treatment approximately two years earlier than she in fact did. As a result, the appellant claimed that she experienced two years of non-specific symptoms (including headaches, tinnitus, and nausea), developed gastrointestinal issues, and was unable to secure permanent employment.

The appellant was successful at first instance. However, she appealed the decision in respect of the amount of damages which had been awarded to her following proof. The respondent lodged a cross-appeal in which it contended that the sheriff had erred in finding negligence in the reporting of the scan. The respondent further contended that the sheriff had erred in finding that the appellant had proved a causal link between the non-reporting of the cyst and such symptoms as had been experienced by her.

The Sheriff Appeal Court (“SAC”) upheld the submissions of the respondent and set aside the sheriff’s findings on negligence and causation. The SAC held that the non-reporting of the cyst on the 2013 scan did not constitute negligence because an ordinarily competent neuroradiologist, exercising ordinary skill and care, could reasonably have not reported on the presence of the cyst due to several factors which made it difficult to observe. The SAC also held that the appellant had failed to prove a causal link between the cyst and the symptoms experienced by her following its non-reporting.

The decision of the SAC provides important guidance to practitioners about the approach which the court will take to issues that are frequently encountered in clinical negligence cases. It is likely to inform the approach to clinical negligence cases in the Sheriff Court in future.

In determining the cross-appeal, the SAC required to consider the proper approach to resolving competing expert evidence on issues of breach of duty. The SAC explained that it was not the function of the court to choose between different schools of expert opinion. Instead, the correct approach was to scrutinise the evidence of the expert opining against negligence and assess whether it stood up to scrutiny and thus constituted a responsible or respectable body of medical opinion. If so, the case in negligence would fail because the pursuer would have failed to prove that no doctor, exercising ordinary skill and care, would have acted in that way (the third limb of the Hunter v Hanley test). The SAC held that the expert evidence led by the respondent constituted a responsible body of medical opinion: it was properly reasoned, logical and stood up to scrutiny. Thus, the appellant’s case failed on negligence.

The SAC also provided guidance on the proper approach to causation. It reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the pursuer who requires to establish, through evidence, matters of causation. In relation to medical causation, the court noted that the pursuer had not led evidence from a neurologist (who would have been the correct speciality to comment on causation). Thus, the SAC found that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof in relation to matters of medical causation. This serves as an important reminder to practitioners to ensure that evidence is led at proof from experts who are appropriately qualified to comment on the matters in dispute.

The case also gave rise to interesting issues of factual causation: in particular, whether the appellant would have obtained surgery abroad had the cyst been reported on earlier. Whilst it was the appellant’s position in evidence that she would have sought and obtained surgery abroad in 2013, the court explained that evidence which is given with the benefit of hindsight requires to be treated with caution. The appellant did not lead evidence from the neurosurgeon who performed surgery in 2015 that he would have performed the same procedure 2 years earlier (before the acute deterioration in her symptoms). Despite the appellant’s evidence to that effect, there was no sufficient basis to conclude that even if the cyst had been reported on in 2013 the appellant would in fact have obtained earlier surgery. In concluding that surgery would have been available abroad in 2013, the sheriff at first instance relied on medical literature which had been cautioned against by the respondent’s experts at proof. However, drawing on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sienkiewicz v Greif, the SAC emphasised that medical literature requires to be treated with caution by courts. Whilst medical literature can assist the court in its assessment of expert evidence, the SAC was clear that it is not the function of the court to draw its own conclusions based on medical literature alone. Practitioners will require to be cognisant of the fact that, whilst it can be helpful, medical literature is not a substitute for properly reasoned expert evidence.

Against that background, the appeal was refused, the cross-appeal was allowed and decree of absolvitor was pronounced.

Opinion of the court, delivered by Sheriff Joan F Kerr, can be viewed here.

Back