DOCSLIB.ORG

Multi-Party Actions Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Multi-Party Actions Report SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION (Scot Law Com No 154) Multi-Party Actions Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Presented to Parliament by the Lord Advocate by Command of Her Majesty July, 1996 EDINBURGH: HMSO £10.45 The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Davidson, Chairman Dr E M Clive Mr W A Nimmo Smith, QC Professor K G C Reid Mr N R Whitty The Secretary of the Commission is Mr K F Barclay. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh, EH9 1PR ii SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Multi-Party Actions Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 To: The Right Honourable the Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, QC, Her Majesty's Advocate We have the honour to submit our Report on Multi-Party Actions: Court Proceedings and Funding. (Signed) C K DAVIDSON, Chairman E M CLIVE W A NIMMO SMITH KENNETH G C REID N R WHITTY KENNETH F BARCLAY, Secretary 13 May 1996 iii Contents Paragraph Page PART I INTRODUCTION 1 The background to this report 1.1 1 The Working Party Report 1.4 2 The Dundee University Research Report 1.6 2 Scope of this report 1.7 3 PART II THE NEED FOR REFORM 5 Introduction: terminology 2.1 5 Types and characteristics of multi-party actions 2.4 6 Sudden mass disasters 2.5 6 Creeping disasters, product liability or medical claims 2.6 7 Consumer claims 2.8 8 Perceived advantages and disadvantages of class action procedure 2.9 8 Advantages 2.10 8 Disadvantages 2.11 9 Are Scottish reforms needed? 2.13 9 Our provisional views 2.13 9 Respondents' views 2.15 10 Discussion 2.17 10 Our recommendation 2.19 11 A new procedure not a panacea 2.20 11 A new procedure does not remove the need for other reforms 2.21 11 Our approach to procedural reforms 2.22 12 PART III THE CLASS ACTION PROCEDURE 14 The representative action as a possible model 3.1 14 The representative action and the class action compared 3.2 14 Class action procedures 3.4 15 The British Columbia procedure: class proceedings 3.5 15 Grounds for certification: a "preferable procedure" 3.6 15 Certification of non-class member as a representative party 3.7 16 Unclaimed residue of monetary award 3.8 16 Provisions on cost and other financial matters 3.9 16 Class action procedures in other jurisdictions: a summary 3.11 17 Proposals with regard to Group Actions in England and Wales 3.13 19 A new rule of court proposed 3.14 19 The new rule 3.15 19 Case management under the new rule 3.16 20 iv Case management: the most suitable approach 3.17 20 Lord Woolf's Access to Justice Inquiry 3.18 20 Conclusion 3.19 21 PART IV RULES FOR A SCOTTISH PROCEDURE 22 Introduction 4.1 22 Jurisdiction: in which courts should a Scottish procedure be available? 4.3 22 The questions posed 4.3 22 Discussion 4.4 22 Respondents' views 4.5 23 Our concluded view 4.6 23 Our recommendation 4.7 23 Related matters 4.7 23 The form of the implementing legislation establishing the procedure 4.9 24 Introduction 4.9 24 Our provisional conclusion and respondents' views 4.10 24 Our recommendation 4.11 24 The general shape of the new procedure 4.13 24 Certification 4.15 25 Should there be a certification requirement 4.18 26 Our recommendation 4.19 26 At what stage in the case should an application for certification be made? 4.20 26 The views of respondents 4.21 27 Our recommendation 4.22 27 Should the Act of Sederunt prescribe the information which the court requires in support of an application for certification? 4.23 27 Procedure in connection with the application for certification 4.24 27 Our recommendations 4.25 27 Content of certification order 4.26 28 Our recommendation 4.27 28 Criteria for certification 4.28 28 Introduction 4.28 28 Background 4.29 28 The matters on which we sought views 4.30 29 General suitability and an identifiable group raising claims with a common basis 4.31 29 Numerosity 4.32 30 A preferable procedure 4.33 30 A satisfactory representative party 4.34 30 Our recommendation 4.37 31 Court to enquire into the adequacy of representative party's legal advisers? 4.38 32 Our recommendation 4.39 32 v Court discretion to refuse certification 4.40 32 Can the court withhold certification? 4.40 32 Respondents' views 4.41 32 Our concluded view and recommendation 4.42 32 Revocation of certification (Decertification) 4.43 33 What can the court do if the criteria are no longer met, after certification has been granted? 4.43 33 Respondents' views 4.44 33 Our concluded view 4.45 33 Our recommendation 4.46 33 Group membership: opting-out or opting-in 4.47 33 Introduction 4.47 33 An opt-out scheme 4.49 33 An opt-in scheme 4.50 34 Our provisional view 4.51 35 Respondents' views in favour of an opt-in scheme 4.52 35 Respondents' views in favour of an opt-out scheme 4.53 35 Our concluded view 4.54 36 Our recommendation 4.55 37 Provision for persons who join the group late or leave early 4.56 37 Our recommendation 4.57 37 Notices to group members 4.58 37 Introduction 4.58 37 Our provisional view 4.59 37 Respondents' views 4.60 38 Matters to be dealt with in the rules 4.61 38 Notice of certification 4.62 38 Notices on other occasions 4.63 38 The content of the notice of certification 4.64 38 Provision of further information 4.65 39 The procedure for giving notice of certification 4.66 39 Our recommendations 4.67 39 Other notices 4.68 40 Our recommendation 4.69 40 The cost of giving notice 4.70 40 Court's power to control the conduct of the proceedings 4.71 40 Introduction 4.71 40 What powers might be needed? 4.72 41 Special provisions in class action procedures in other jurisdictions 4.73 41 Change of attitudes in Britain to court control of litigation 4.74 41 Court of Session Commercial Actions 4.75 42 Review of Business of Outer House of the Court of Session 4.76 42 Developments in England and Wales 4.77 42 English Law Society's Report on Group Actions 4.78 43 vi Our provisional view 4.80 43 Respondents' views 4.81 44 Our concluded views 4.82 44 Our recommendations 4.85 45 Abandonment or settlement to be subject to court's approval 4.87 46 Introduction 4.87 46 The provisions in other jurisdictions 4.88 46 Some difficult questions likely to arise 4.89 46 Our provisional view 4.90 47 Respondents' views 4.91 47 Our conclusions and recommendation 4.92 47 The substitution of a new representative party 4.93 48 Introduction 4.93 48 Our provisional view 4.94 48 Respondents' view and our recommendation 4.95 48 Aggregate assessment of monetary awards 4.96 49 Introduction 4.96 49 Our provisional view on whether aggregate assessment is in principle acceptable 4.97 49 Respondents' view 4.101 50 Our concluded view 4.102 50 Our recommendation 4.103 50 Contribution by group members towards the expenses of the representative party 4.105 51 Introduction 4.105 51 Background 4.106 51 Our provisional views on determination of liability of the individual class members 4.107 51 Respondents' views 4.108 51 Our recommendation 4.109 52 Sums due by the defenders to the group to be paid into and disbursed by the court 4.110 52 Our provisional view 4.110 52 Respondents' views 4.111 52 Our concluded view 4.112 52 Our recommendation 4.113 53 The binding effect of the judgment 4.114 53 Introduction 4.114 53 Our provisional view 4.115 53 Respondents' views 4.116 53 Our concluded view 4.117 53 Our recommendation 4.118 54 Ministerial or official participation in group proceedings 4.120 54 Introduction 4.120 54 When might intervention be desirable 4.121 55 Arguments against intervention 4.122 55 Our provisional view 4.123 55 vii Respondents' views 4.124 55 Our concluded view 4.125 55 Our recommendation 4.126 55 Remits 4.127 55 Introduction 4.127 55 The present law: remits from the Court of Session 4.128 56 The present law: remits to the Court of Session 4.129 56 Our provisional view 4.130 56 The questions posed 4.131 56 The views of respondents and our recommendation 4.132 56 The value rule 4.134 57 Respondents' view and our conclusion 4.135 57 Prescription of obligations and limitation of actions 4.136 57 Introduction 4.136 57 Our provisional view 4.137 58 Respondents' views 4.138 58 Our concluded view 4.139 58 Our recommendation 4.140 58 Certification on the application of the defenders 4.141 58 Introduction 4.141 58 Our provisional view 4.142 59 Respondents' views 4.143 59 Our recommendation 4.144 59 Appeals 4.145 59 Introduction 4.145 59 Two policy questions in connection with group proceedings in the Court of Session 4.146 59 Specific appeal provisions 4.147 59 Introduction 4.147 59 Our provisional view 4.148 59 Respondents' views 4.149 60 Our recommendation on the competency of an appeal without leave 4.150 60 Appeal by another group member 4.151 60 Introduction 4.151 60 Our provisional view 4.152 60 Respondents' views and discussion 4.153 60 Our recommendation on whether it should be competent for another group member to reclaim 4.154 61 The arrangements for another group member to reclaim 4.155 61 Reclaiming by another group member where certification refused or revoked 4.156 61 Our recommendations on the arrangements to enable another group member to reclaim 4.157 61 Matters relevant to the introduction of our recommended procedure 4.158 61 Resource implications: how many cases likely? 4.159 62 Recent multi-party actions 4.160 62 viii The likely use to be made of a new group proceedings procedure 4.162 62 Conclusion 4.164 63 Promoting the new procedure: legal education 4.165 63 Introduction 4.165 63 The Ontario recommendation 4.166 63 Our
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Challenge to the Trade Unions
    The Conservative Government’s Proposed Strike Ballot Thresholds: The Challenge to the Trade Unions Salford Business School Research Working Paper August 2015 Professor Ralph Darlington Salford Business School, University of Salford, and Dr John Dobson Riga International College of Economics and Business Administration Corresponding author: Professor Ralph Darlington, Salford Business School, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT; [email protected]; 0161-295-5456 Ralph Darlington is Professor of Employment Relations at the University of Salford. His research is concerned with the dynamics of trade union organisation, activity and consciousness in Britain and internationally within both contemporary and historical settings. He is author of The Dynamics of Workplace Unionism (Mansell, 1994) and Radical Unionism (Haymarket, 2013); co-author of Glorious Summer: Class Struggle in Britain, 1972, (Bookmarks, 2001); and editor of What’s the Point of Industrial Relations? In Defence of Critical Social Science (BUIRA, 2009). He is an executive member of the British Universities Industrial Relations Association and secretary of the Manchester Industrial Relations Society. John Dobson has published widely on the operation of labour markets in Central and Eastern Europe and is currently Associated Professor at Riga International College of Economics and Business Administration, Latvia. He was previously a senior lecturer in Industrial Relations at the University of Salford, where he was Head of the School of Management (2002-6) and President
    [Show full text]
  • Petition and Summons Procedure
    Annex A The New Civil Procedure Rules – First Report Petition and Summons Procedure Discussion paper for the Rules Rewrite Committee of the Scottish Civil Justice Council Dr. Stephen Thomson 14th December 2016 1 Annex A The New Civil Procedure Rules – First Report Discussion Paper on Petition and Summons Procedure Structure of Paper 1. Research specification 3 2. Historical, legal and principled basis for the distinction 4 2.1 Overview 4 2.2 Determination of whether to commence process by petition or summons 10 2.3 Testing the distinction between the petition and summons 14 a. Petition is usually an ex parte form of originating non-contentious or non-adversarial process 15 b. Petition involves the discretionary exercise of statutory or common law powers as distinct from the application of rules of law 18 3. Difficulties caused by the distinction in present practice 28 4. Difficulties likely to be presented by the removal of the distinction 32 4.1 Risk of replacing one two-tier process with another 32 4.2 Ensuring the continued possibility of ex parte applications 36 4.3 Retaining flexibility/brevity in appropriate cases 36 4.4 Retaining the relative speed and cheapness of abbreviated/expedited process 38 5. Other jurisdictions 39 5.1 England and Wales 39 5.2 Australia 41 a. New South Wales 41 b. Victoria 43 5.3 New Zealand 44 5.4 Canada 47 a. Ontario 47 b. British Columbia 49 c. Alberta 50 6. Conclusion 51 2 Annex A The New Civil Procedure Rules – First Report 1. Research Specification I have been asked by the Rules Rewrite Committee (the “Committee”) of the Scottish Civil Justice Council (the “SCJC”), to provide historical and principled academic analysis in relation to questions arising from the proposal to merge petition and summons procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Fergus Whyte | Arnot Manderson Advocates
    [email protected] 07572 945 963 Year of Call FERGUS WHYTE 2020 Devil Masters Usman Tariq Ross McClelland Frances Connor @WhyteFergus on Twitter LinkedIn Profile Practice Profile Fergus is an experienced litigator with an interest in commercial and public law disputes, intellectual property, data protection and media law, trust law and alternative dispute resolution. He has considerable experience in courtroom advocacy as well as experience in conducting complex litigation, dealing with expert evidence and managing client relationships. Fergus transferred to the Scottish bar in June 2020 having previously been a barrister and solicitor in New Zealand (since 2012) and having completed an LLM at the University of Edinburgh and the Faculty of Advocates examinations in Scots Law. Since calling he has acted in a commercial matter in the Outer House as sole counsel as well as appearing as a junior in the Inner House, and conducted a number of proceedings before Sheriffs. He has also recently appeared as junior counsel in an arbitration under the Dubai International Arbitration Centre Rules relating to a construction dispute. He has a strong background in legal research and comparative law having acted as a judges' clerk (judicial assistant), in client and case management as a solicitor in a boutique litigation firm and as an advocate before the higher courts in New Zealand. He has worked in a number of legal roles in Scotland including as a researcher to the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry. Fergus is an associate member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a former coach of the University of Edinburgh Vis Moot Team.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report
    The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report May 2017 Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Background to the rules rewrite project.............................................................................. 3 The Acts ........................................................................................................................ 3 The Rules Rewrite Working Group ................................................................................. 4 The Rules Rewrite Drafting Team and implementation of the 2014 Act .......................... 5 The Rules Rewrite Project ................................................................................................. 6 The scope of the project ................................................................................................. 6 Matters out with the scope of the project ........................................................................ 8 Purpose of this report ........................................................................................................ 9 Discussion papers .......................................................................................................... 9 Engagement with the public and the professions ......................................................... 10 Chapter 2. A statement of principle .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED]
    United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill [AS PASSED] CONTENTS Section PART 1 THE UNCRC REQUIREMENTS Meaning of “the UNCRC requirements” and related expressions 1 Meaning of “the UNCRC requirements” and related expressions 2 Meaning of references to States Parties and related expressions in the UNCRC requirements 3 Power to modify the schedule Interpretation of the UNCRC requirements 4 Interpretation of the UNCRC requirements 5 Duty to modify section 4 on ratification of the third optional protocol to the Convention PART 2 DUTIES ON PUBLIC AUTHORITIES Acts of public authorities to be compatible with the UNCRC requirements 6 Acts of public authorities to be compatible with the UNCRC requirements Remedies for unlawful acts 7 Proceedings for unlawful acts 8 Judicial remedies 8A Child’s view on effectiveness of reliefs etc. 9 Restriction on proceedings in respect of judicial acts Power for Commissioner to bring or intervene in proceedings 10 Power for Commissioner to bring or intervene in proceedings Power for Scottish Commission for Human Rights to bring or intervene in proceedings 10A Power for Scottish Commission for Human Rights to bring or intervene in proceedings Guidance on this Part 10B Guidance on this Part SP Bill 80B Session 5 (2021) ii United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill PART 3 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS SCHEME, CHILD RIGHTS AND WELLBEING IMPACT ASSESSMENTS AND REPORTING DUTIES Children’s Rights Scheme 11 Children’s Rights Scheme 12 Procedure for
    [Show full text]
  • Poinding and Warrant Sale
    SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION (Scot Law Com No 177) Report on Poinding and Warrant Sale Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers April 2000 SE/2000/40 Edinburgh: The Stationery Office £12.90 The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 19651 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Gill, Chairman P S Hodge, QC Professor G Maher Professor K G C Reid Professor J M Thomson The Secretary of the Commission is Mr N Raven. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR 1 Now amended by the Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No 2) Order 1999 (S.I.1999/1802) ii SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Poinding and Warrant Sale To: Jim Wallace, Esq., QC, MSP, Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice We have the honour to submit to the Scottish Ministers our Report on Poinding and Warrant Sale. (Signed) BRIAN GILL, Chairman PATRICK S HODGE GERARD MAHER KENNETH G C REID JOSEPH M THOMSON NORMAN RAVEN, Secretary 20 March 2000 iii Contents Paragraph Page Executive Summary x-xi Table of Abbreviations xii-xiii PART I - INTRODUCTION Background to report 1.1 1 Our 1985 Report and the 1987 Act 1.3 1 Consultation and other material 1.5 2 The SOCRU evaluation of the 1987 Act 1.9 3 Structure of the report 1.10 3 Acknowledgements 1.11 3 PART 2 - POLICY ISSUES Introduction 2.1 4 The nature
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Law Commission Annual Report 2019
    promoting law reform (SCOT LAW COM No 255) annual report | 2019 1 2 promoting law reform The Commission was established under the Law Commissions Act 1965 Our function To recommend reforms to improve, simplify and update the law of Scotland Our role To play a leading role in developing the law for the people of Scotland so that it is just, principled, responsive and easy to understand annual report | 2019 1 Commissioners and Chief Executive in 2019 (back row) Malcolm McMillan (Chief Executive), David Johnston QC, and Lady Paton (Chair) (front row) Professor Frankie McCarthy, Caroline Drummond and Kate Dowdalls QC 2 promoting law reform Annual Report 2019 To: Humza Yousaf MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice We are pleased to submit to the Scottish Ministers our Annual Report for the year to 31 December 2019. ANN PATON, Chair KATE DOWDALLS FRANKIE McCARTHY Malcolm McMillan, Chief Executive 10 February 2020 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers under section 3(3) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. February 2020 SCOT LAW COM No 255 SG/2020/23 3 © Crown copyright 2020 You may re-use this publication (excluding logos and any photographs) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email: [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF the Whole Part
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Court of Session Act 1988, Part I. (See end of Document for details) Court of Session Act 1988 1988 CHAPTER 36 PART I CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE COURT 1 Number of judges of Court. (1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) [F1, (3A)] and (4) below, the maximum number of judges of the Court of Session (hereinafter in this Act referred to as “the Court”) shall be [F235] (2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council from time to time amend subsection (1) above so as to increase or further increase the maximum number of persons who may be appointed as judges of the Court. (3) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft of the Order has been laid before [F3and approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament.] [F4(3A) The Lord President must be consulted before any draft of an Order under this section is laid before the Parliament.] (4) No vacancy arising among the judges of the Court shall be filled unless the Secretary of State F5. .is satisfied that the state of business in the Court requires that the vacancy should be filled. (5) There shall be paid out of the Consolidated Fund any increase attributable to the provisions of this section in the sums which, under any other enactment, are payable out of that Fund. Subordinate Legislation Made P1 S. 1(2): power exercised (19.12.1991) by S.I. 1991/2884 2 Court of Session Act 1988 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicola Gilchrist | Arnot Manderson Advocates
    [email protected] 07884 060508 Year of Call NICOLA GILCHRIST 2011 Devil Masters Kate Dowdalls QC Gavin McColl QC Shelagh McCall QC @NicolaGilchrist on Twitter LinkedIn Profile Practice Profile Nicola is recommended in both the Chambers & Partners UK Bar and The Legal 500 UK Bar guides. Nicola specialises in family and child law, and is regularly involved in cases in the Court of Session and Sheriff Courts both in cases at first instance and in appeals to the Sheriff Appeal Court and the Inner House. She has experience across the board in litigation concerning divorce, financial provision, cohabitation and civil partnerships. Her expertise in child law encompasses all of its many facets, including complex jurisdictional issues, international child abduction, permanence orders and petitions for adoption. She has a particular interest in cases that involve sensitive cross-cultural issues, domestic abuse and matters affecting women and girls. She successfully appeared in the first forced marriage case to be heard in Scotland. Nicola was appointed as an Advocate Depute (Ad Hoc) in 2015 and she has been instructed as junior counsel in a number of criminal trials and has appeared in the High Court of Justiciary and in the Criminal Appeal Court for both the Crown and the Appellant. Nicola was appointed as a lead statement taker at the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry in 2016. Nicola is a director of Relationships Scotland. Education & Professional Career to Date Trainee Solicitor - Balfour & Manson Solicitor - MMS Solicitor - HBJ
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Memorandum (97KB Pdf Posted 16 June 2009)
    This document relates to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 27) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 15 June 2009 INTERPRETATION AND LEGISLATIVE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL —————————— POLICY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. This document relates to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 15 June 2009. It has been prepared by the Scottish Government to satisfy Rule 9.3.3(c) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders. The contents are entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Government and have not been endorsed by the Parliament. Explanatory Notes and other accompanying documents are published separately as SP Bill 27–EN. BACKGROUND 2. The Bill deals principally with technical procedural matters concerning the making and interpretation of Acts of the Scottish Parliament (“ASPs”) and Scottish instruments made under them. The Bill’s provisions broadly restate, with some modifications, provisions currently found in the Transitional Orders. The Transitional Orders were enacted by Westminster in anticipation of the Scottish Parliament coming into being. The Transitional Orders are– • The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Publication and Interpretation etc. of Acts of the Scottish Parliament) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1379) (“the Interpretation Order”); • The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1096) (“the SI Order”); and • The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Orders subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1593) (“the SPP Order”). 3. As their name suggests, the Transitional Orders were conceived to be interim measures to allow the new Parliament to operate until such time as it made its own provision.
    [Show full text]
  • The Petition in the Court of Session in Early Modern Scotland John Finlay
    1 The petition in the Court of Session in early modern Scotland John Finlay School of Law, University of Glasgow, Scotland SUMMARY Petitions to Scotland’s central civil court, the Court of Session, contained common features of style despite being presented for a wide range of purposes. As well as being employed in the course of procedure in a number of litigated cases, the petition was used to obtain entry to an office, or in seeking an equitable remedy which might relieve imminent suffering. In many cases they offer detailed narratives about everyday life, commerce, politics and religion which preserve a great deal that may be of value to the legal and social historian. Some petitioners, such as the poor and vulnerable, enjoyed a privileged status entitling them to have their claims heard summarily. A number of petitions, written by lawyers in order to persuade, contain ideas about liberty, justice and reason reflecting the fact that they were addressed to a court of both law and equity. This contribution identifies the features of such petitions, attempts to classify them, and considers their wider historical significance. This article discusses eighteenth-century petitions in the Court of Session, Scotland’s central civil court. The court comprised 15 judges: 14 lords 2 ordinary and a lord president. While individual lords ordinary heard cases at first instance in the Outer House, and dealt with summary bills and evidential matters, the ‘hail [whole] fifteen’ sat collectively in the Inner House of the court to determine points reported to them for decision. They enjoyed an extensive jurisdiction as a court of first instance, and also in review of judgments made in local courts or interlocutors [decrees] made by their own lords ordinary.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Interpretation of the Scottish Juvenile Justice System: Fostering Or Frustrating the Welfare Model? Barbara A
    Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 8 | Issue 2 Article 4 8-1-1985 Judicial Interpretation of the Scottish Juvenile Justice System: Fostering or Frustrating the Welfare Model? Barbara A. Cardone Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Juvenile Law Commons Recommended Citation Barbara A. Cardone, Judicial Interpretation of the Scottish Juvenile Justice System: Fostering or Frustrating the Welfare Model?, 8 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 377 (1985), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol8/iss2/4 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Judicial Interpretation of the Scottish Juvenile Justice System: Fostering or Frustrating the Welfare Model? I. INTRODUCTION In 1961 the Secretary of State for Scotland 1 appointed the Honorable Lord Kilbrandon2 to chair a committee3 to evaluate the powers and procedures of the Scottish courts4 treating juvenile delinquents" and juveniles in need of care or protection.6 At the time of the Committee's formation,juvenile crime in Scotland 1. The Secretary of State for Scotland, a government minister, maintains various administrative responsibilities for Scottish affairs. Among the Secretary's duties are the administration of health, education, housing, roads, and the courts. Traditionally, the Secretary of State is always a member of the House of Commons. F.M.
    [Show full text]