Latest news with #CourtOfSession
The Independent
20-05-2025
- Automotive
- The Independent
Judges rule ‘dieselgate' group action can proceed in Scotland
Judges have ruled that a group action against car manufacturers in the so-called 'dieselgate' case can proceed in Scotland's highest civil court. The case concerns legal action over allegations that Nissan and Renault fitted prohibited 'defeat devices' to diesel vehicles to get round emissions tests. Joseph Mackay applied for permission to bring group proceedings on behalf of about 8,500 people who claim to have suffered loss as a result of the manufacturers' alleged behaviour. The Lord Ordinary sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh previously granted permission for the group action to go ahead. However, the various Nissan companies, described as the defenders, appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session to challenge that decision. The Lord President Lord Pentland, sitting with Lady Wise and Lord Clark, has now refused the appeal, allowing the group action to proceed. In order to begin group proceedings in Scotland, two initial applications must be made to the court, one to appoint a representative party and other for permission to bring the proposed group proceedings. Nissan contended that Mr Mackay failed to demonstrate that he was an appropriate person to be appointed as the representative party. They also argued that it was not shown that it would be more efficient for the claims to be brought as a group action rather than individually, nor that the proceedings had any real prospect of success. In an opinion delivered by Lord Pentland on Tuesday, the judges said the Lord Ordinary was 'fully entitled' to conclude that the applicant was a 'suitable person to be authorised to act as the representative party in the proposed group proceedings'. He wrote: 'In summary, the applicant had no interest in the proceedings other than his own claim; he was wholly independent of the defenders; there was nothing to suggest that he would act otherwise than fairly and adequately in the group's interests.' The ruling notes that the Lord Ordinary's decision to authorise the bringing of group proceedings was a discretionary decision and that there is 'no justification' for the Inner House to interfere with it. It also states that the Lord Ordinary was justified in concluding that there were 'real prospects of success' and that it would be more efficient for the claims to be brought collectively rather than individually. Renault did not contest the Lord Ordinary's original decision.
BBC News
20-05-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Nurse awarded £88,000 after being hit by falling chisel
A nurse who was hit on the head by a chisel which fell 30ft (9m) from the roof of a house has been awarded £88,000 in McFadyen was "suddenly and without warning" struck on the head by the tool at her brother's home in Linwood, Renfrewshire, in October for Renfrewshire Council admitted liability for the incident, which was caused by its employees who were working on the roof at the time of the McFadyen was awarded a total of £88,693 after the Court of Session agreed the incident had left her with debilitating injuries. The court heard how Ms Fadyen had bent down to wipe dirt off her trainers when the implement, which was 2.5ft (76.2cm) long and weighed about 4kg (8.8lbs), smashed off the right side of her was taken to hospital for treatment and in the weeks following the incident she experienced poor sleep and also suffered from confusion as well as "putting things in the wrong place and unable to speak the words that she wanted to say."She had pain in her right ear, tingling and numbness on the right side of her face. After going back to hospital, medics found she had sustained a small fracture to the right side of her court heard how, almost four years after the incident, Ms McFadyen still experiences persistent headaches approximately four times per also suffers from constant, severe, tinnitus in her right court heard that Ms McFadyen said her tinnitus is a "loud, persistent fuzzy noise" which has had a "profound impact on her life." Constantly tired and irritable In his judgement, Judge Lord Braid wrote that she has difficulty sleeping and is unwilling to take sleeping tablets due to her job. The court heard that she is now "constantly tired and irritable."He noted that she had gone from being "happy-go-lucky" to suffering from panic attacks and anxiety, becoming someone "who gets very uptight and who flies off the handle at her husband and children at the least thing". The court heard that she has also been unable to go back to working in her former position and she is now working on an elective orthopaedic for Renfrewshire Council admitted liability for the incident. They accepted that the accident was caused by council employees who had been working on the roof at the time of the Braid concluded that Ms McFadyen's concentration and memory have been affected, reducing her ability to work. He wrote that she is now fatigued and the injury has interfered with her social life and leisure activities.
Daily Mail
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Girls STILL forced to share loos with boys despite schools facing 94 complaints
Young girls across Scotland are still being expected to share school toilets with boys – as new figures show that councils have received almost 100 complaints and representations about gender neutral loos in the last three years. Scottish state schools were ordered to provide single sex toilets in a landmark ruling handed down by a judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last month. Yet The Mail on Sunday has found that many of the 32 local authorities are 'considering' the verdict before making changes. That is despite data showing there have been 94 queries raised by youngsters and staff about gender neutral or unisex loos since 2021. SNP-run East Dunbartonshire has received the most criticism. Last night it admitted that 51 'complaints and representations' had been made about their 'inclusive' loo provision. However, a spokesman claimed only two official complaints were lodged with the council directly. Scottish Conservative MSP Pam Gosal said: 'Complaints about this issue are rife. It seems some councils are taking these and recording them while others appear to be brushing them under the carpet. 'It's totally unacceptable for any girl in school to have to share facilities such as toilets and changing areas with boys.' Public bodies across Scotland have had to re-evaluate policies on single sex facilities after last month's UK Supreme Court ruling on gender. However, schools are under particular pressure after parents won a separate legal fight days later over single sex facilities at the new £16.6 million Earlston Primary School in Berwickshire. Lawyer Rosie Walker of Gilson Gray, representing the parents, told the Mail that 'gender-neutral toilets' were not permitted under regulations dating back to 1967. The case, which concerned Scottish Borders Council, has a knock on effect for all local authorities. Judge Lady Ross, KC, said she would issue a court order to make legal obligations on state schools clear after Sean Stratford and Leigh Hurley brought the judicial review over their concerns about transgender policies at the school, where their son was a pupil. The Mail on Sunday asked all councils what progress had been made since the Court of Session ruling on April 23. Of the 19 which responded, only two – Glasgow and East Lothian – had changed signage in some schools. Six councils said they already had single sex provision and the rest declared they were considering the court verdicts. A Scottish Government spokesman said: 'The Education Secretary is engaging with Cosla to carefully consider the implications of the Court of Session ruling.'
Telegraph
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
SNP spent nearly £400k arguing that trans women are women
SNP ministers spent almost £400,000 of taxpayers' money on lawyers arguing that transgender women should have access to female-only toilets. Official figures showed the SNP Government spent more than £216,000 in legal fees fighting the case in Scotland's highest civil court. They won their case in the Court of Session that the definition of woman for the purposes of the Equality Act should include trans people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC). But feminist group For Women Scotland (FWS) appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the previous ruling and found that the definition was based on biological sex. The figures, obtained by the Scottish Tories under Freedom of Information (FoI), showed SNP ministers spent almost £160,000 on legal fees on their failed case in the UK's highest court. This means they spent a total of just under £374,000 on their legal battle against FWS, which culminated in the ruling that trans women are not women. The FoI also disclosed that this figure could grow as final costs 'are still being determined '. Despite the huge bill, SNP ministers have failed to act on the court ruling by ordering Scotland's public sector bodies to ditch their policies allowing biological males who self-identify as women to access female-only areas. Tess White, Scottish shadow equalities minister, said: 'It will rightly stick in the throat of taxpayers that they are picking up a huge legal tab for the SNP's needless and humiliating court defeat. 'John Swinney's party threw good money after bad in a doomed attempt to defend their reckless gender policy which betrayed women.' She added: 'Yet, even now, John Swinney won't apologise or issue a new directive to public sector bodies – which adopted self-ID wholesale – on their legal requirement to protect single-sex spaces. That negligence leaves the taxpayer wide open to huge compensation payouts.' First Minister John Swinney has advised public bodies to wait for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to publish guidance in the summer despite the watchdog warning that the court ruling takes effect immediately. The legal battle started in 2022 when FWS successfully challenged Scottish Government legislation that intended to increase the proportion of women on public boards. This included trans women. The Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that changing the definition of a woman fell outside Holyrood's powers, prompting ministers to issued revised advice to public bodies. This said that the definition only included trans women if they had a GRC. But FWS launched another court action arguing that it should be limited to biological women. This was rejected by the Court of Session's Outer House in Dec 2022. FWS appealed to the decision to the court's Inner House but lost again in Nov 2023. The new figures disclosed the Scottish Government spent £216,182.50 fighting both cases in the Court Session. A further £157,816.30 was spent on legal fees on the Supreme Court case, taking the total amount to £373,998.80. 'Final costs in relation to the case are still being determined and are not yet available. We will publish the total cost of the case when it is fully complete,' the Scottish Government said in the FoI response.
