Latest News
22/07/2008 - COMPASS CHAMBERS WELCOME NEW ADVOCATES
Compass Chambers is pleased to announce that two new members of the Faculty of Advocates have been successful in their applications to join the Chambers. Richard Pugh joins from private practice where he specialised in cases relating to medical and professional negligence, and personal injury litigation.
Prior to coming to the Bar, Craig Murray spent five years in private practice covering a wide range of litigation. In the longer term, Craig intends to specialise in regulatory prosecutions. Compass offers expertise and experience across a broad spectrum of litigation, with core strengths in personal injury, professional negligence, regulatory prosecutions and professional disciplinary proceedings.
Both Richard and Craig are seen as being valuable additions to Compass and will further enhance its reputation as leaders in the provision of specialist advice and advocacy.
15/07/2008 - Prosecution of Ondeo Industrial Solutions UK Limited
Yvonne Waugh represented Ondeo Industrial Solutions UK Limited in a prosecution brought under environmental legislation following oil slicks in the Firth of Forth in July 2007. Ondeo manage the effluent treatment plant for wastewater from the Grangemouth Oil Refinery. They faced a fine of up to £50,000 following large oil slicks on the Forth identified as having been released from the Treatment plant. Having heard submissions the court imposed a fine of £3,000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7507680.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/3000-fine-for-9mile-oil.4291285.jp
08/07/2008 - Maureen Flood v University of Glasgow (Lord Woolman). Procedure Roll
In this occupational stress case, the pursuer claimed damages from her former employers, the University of Glasgow, for psychiatric harm which she contended resulted from overwork. It was argued on behalf of the defenders that the action was irrelevant, in that the pursuer had failed to make sufficient averments to establish the nature of any breach of duty on the part of the defenders and how that duty ought to have been fulfilled. The pursuer's action was dismissed.
Astrid Smart of Compass Chambers appeared for the defenders.
14/06/2008 - Compass Chambers take on the Caledonian Challenge 2008
Congratulations to Calum Wilson, Steve Love, Yvonne Waugh & Amber Galbraith took part in this year's Caledonian Challenge and raised over £2500. The team who were supported by Robert Milligan and Malcolm McGregor took part in the 54 mile trek from Fort William to Loch Lomond, with only brief rest and refuelling stops. The Caledonian Challenge has established itself as Scotland’s foremost endurance fund-raising event since it was founded 10 years ago.
29/05/2008 - Foodie Heaven
Last month Compass Chambers and guests enjoyed a fantastic evening at Edinburgh’s world famous Tower Restaurant to celebrate Compass Chambers’ first birthday. The sun was shining as guests sipped champagne on the roof top terrace before retreating inside to indulge in a seasonal six course tasting menu with accompanying wines. Charles MacLean , local whisky expert and world renowned whisky writer provided an entertaining whisky tasting to complete the celebrations. Look out for the next Compass Chambers Foodie extravaganza!
28/05/2008 - Harbro Farm Sales Ltd v Allan Elliott and Mrs J Elliott and Massey Bros. (Feeds) Ltd
Sheriff D J Cusine
Aberdeen Sheriff Court
In this product liability proof the Pursuer and Third Party successfully defended a £160,000 counter-claim in respect of allegedly defective game bird feed.
The Defenders, who were rearers of pheasants and other game birds, refused to pay the Pursuer’s invoices for pheasant feed supplied in the 2001 season. The Pursuer sued for payment and the Defenders counterclaimed. The Third Party, as manufacturer of some of the feed, was later brought into the action. Evidence, including that of three animal nutrition experts and a veterinary surgeon was led over thirteen days at Aberdeen Sheriff Court throughout 2007. The Sheriff held that the Defenders had “failed to establish that the feed supplied to them by the Pursuers was not of satisfactory quality, or deficient in any way,” preferring the explanation of the experts for the Pursuer and Third Party that the Defenders losses in 2001 were more likely to have been caused by disease.
Barry T Smith, Advocate, of Compass Chambers represented the Pursuer and Third Party (Agents McClure Naismith and Simpson & Marwick (Aberdeen))
13/05/2008 - Samantha Baird v Graham Cowie
This was a Jury Trial involving the traumatic above-knee amputation of a young woman. Damages were valued in excess of £1,000,000. The case settled on the morning of the Trial. D.I. MacKay QC and Robert Milligan of Compass Chambers acted for the Defender, Astrid Smart of Compass Chambers was Junior Counsel for the Pursuer.
25/04/2008 - Kevin Ruddy v The Chief Constable & The Lord Advocate
Sheriff Principal Taylor
The Pursuer alleged that he had been assaulted by officers of Strathclyde Police. He sought damages against the Chief Constable in respect of the alleged assault. The Chief Constable conceded that a Proof Before Answer should be allowed in respect of said claim. The Pursuer however separately contended that by reason of the assault he had been subjected to degrading treatment incompatible with his rights under Article 3 of The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and claimed a further sum of damages against both of the Defenders in respect of what he claimed was a breach of the adjectival obligations incumbent on each of the Defenders to investigate the allegation of assault. The allegation had been investigated by the Police Complaints Branch of Strathclyde Police and also by the Procurator Fiscal. Pursuant to said investigations it was concluded by the Procurator Fiscal that no proceedings should be brought and by the Police that no disciplinary proceedings were warranted. Against the First Defender (The Chief Constable) the Pursuer contended that the European jurisprudence required inter alia that in order that his adjectival Article 3 rights be given effect to it was necessary that his complaint be investigated by another Police Force. The Defenders sought dismissal of that part of the Pursuer’s claim based on the alleged breach of the adjectival Article 3 right. It was held by the Sheriff at first instance that the said claim was irrelevant and that when one looked at the investigation as a whole it could not be said that there had been a breach of the Pursuer’s adjectival Article 3 rights. The Pursuer appealed. The appeal was refused. It was held by the Sheriff Principal, agreeing with the Sheriff, that the European Court had set down a goal which required to be achieved. That goal required that there be an effective, efficient investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. How the goal is to be achieved will vary from case to case. There is no set formula that requires to be adhered to. Looked at as a whole the investigation into the complaint made by the Pursuer in the particular circumstances of this case was adequate to comply with the adjectival obligation contained in Article 3.
Lesley Shand, QC of Compass Chambers represented the Chief Constable both at first instance and on appeal. The Pursuer was represented at the appeal by Roy Martin QC and the Second Defenders by Rory Anderson QC and Douglas Ross, Advocate.
A copy of the Judgement in this case is available from Irene Mackenzie of Compass Chambers.
10/03/2008 - Michael Knaup v Guernsey Ship Management Limited & Another
Peterhead Sheriff Court, 3rd March 2008
Defenders successfully sought dismissal of the action on the basis of the pursuer’s failure to progress same. The action concerned an accident onboard a vessel that occurred on 12th January 1999. The accident was allegedly caused by the state of the vessel. The action was raised on 4th April 2002 (in accordance with an agreed extended triennium). Thereafter the action was sisted and remained so until the defenders enrolled a motion seeking to recall the sist and to dismiss the action. Applying the guidance provided by the Inner House in Tonner v Reiach & Hall 2007 SLT 1183, the Sheriff (Gardner) concluded that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay. At the motion for dismissal, the court also heard a simultaneous motion on behalf of the pursuer seeking to amend the pleadings to include inter alia a new case of fault against the captain of the vessel. It was submitted on behalf of the defenders and accepted by the Sheriff that a number of witnesses were either untraceable or deceased. The captain of the vessel was traced to Germany but could not recall events due to the passage of time. The vessel itself was in Brazil. The pursuer had spent a significant period of time since the accident in his native Germany. The Sheriff held that the particular facts and circumstances of the case demonstrated clear prejudice to the defenders in the event that the action was allowed to proceed. Malcolm McGregor of Compass Chambers represented the defenders.
30/01/2008 - McGibbon v McAllister [2008] CSOH 4
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2008CSOH04.htmlLord Brodie held that the definition of “parent” in the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 (as amended) had to be read in the light of the Human Rights Act. Accordingly, the “de facto stepfather” of the deceased was held to be a “parent” in terms of paragraph (b) of Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act 1976, notwithstanding that he was not the natural father of the deceased and so did not fall within the normal definition of a parent. To hold otherwise would be inconsistent with Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR when read together as it would discriminate against the pursuer on the basis purely of his marital status. Although the specific significance of this case is limited, because the Damages (Scotland) Act has now been amended to include those in the position of Mr. McGibbon, the wider significance of this case is that it is authority for the proposition that conferring title to sue may be fall within the state’s obligations under Article 8. The pursuer was represented by Robert Milligan of Compass Chambers. The defender was represented by a solicitor advocate.
29/01/2008 - Utilities not liable for Street trips; Foster v Dundee City Council
Foster v Dundee City Council, Sheriff McCulloch, 22 January 2008.
In this case, the Council was sued for damages after the pursuer was injured when he tripped on a missing toby cover. The Council convened Scottish Water, the owner of the toby cover, as a Third Party. Such actions usually settle on a 50:50 basis, and indeed Scottish Water tendered 50:50 liability. However, the Council rejected the tender, indicating that they took the view that Scottish Water should be entirely responsible. Accordingly, despite the fact that damages were agreed at the low level of £2,500, the case went to proof as a test case. The Sheriff disagreed with the Council’s argument, and rather took the view that there was no liability at all on Scottish Water, who were assoilzied. It remains to be seen whether this will result in the practice which has been widespread thus far, of Utilities and Councils agreeing to share liability in such cases on a 50:50 basis, being reviewed by the many utility companies with ironwork in the streets around Scotland.Roddy Dunlop of Compass Chambers was counsel for Scottish Water. The decision can be viewed by clicking on the box below.
23/10/2007 - Pleural plaques not actionable in Scotland
Lord Uist has followed the seminal decision of the House of Lords in the English case of Rothwell (see below: “Pleural Plaques do not sound in damages”), holding that the same result should follow in Scotland. Roddy Dunlop of Compass Chambers was one of the junior counsel for the defenders.
19/10/2007 - HMA v Colin Kane, High Court, Glasgow : Causing death by dangerous driving: undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea.
The accused, a commercial lorry driver, was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, having collided with a stationary queue of traffic, resulting in the death of three people. It was agreed that the most likely immediate cause of the accident was that Mr Kane had fallen asleep at the wheel. Investigation established that, at the time of the accident, Mr Kane was suffering from chronic obstructive sleep apnoea. The condition was undiagnosed at the time of the accident. The principal issue at trial, in respect of which considerable expert evidence was led, was whether Mr Kane was aware, or ought to have been aware that he was suffering from excessive daytime sleepiness at the time of the accident. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found the case not proven.
Mr Kane was represented by Peter Gray QC of Compass Chambers (instructed by HBM Sayers).
17/10/2007 - Pleural Plaques do not sound in damages
The House of Lords has issued its decision in the long awaited case of Rothwell and others v. Chemical and Insulating Company Limited: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071017/sshd.pdf. The House has ruled that asymptomatic pleural plaques do not sound in damages, at least when the basis of the claim is negligence or breach of statutory duty. The same applies even if the diagnosis of pleural plaques is accompanied by psychiatric injury. Intriguingly, however, Lords Hope, Scott and Mance raised a query as to whether damages might be recoverable if a pursuer were to sue in contract rather than in negligence; and Lords Hope and Mance suggested that the earlier decision of the House in Page v Smith might be open to reconsideration. Accordingly, the decision in Rothwell may well be productive of further litigation.
Roddy Dunlop of Compass Chambers was Scottish consultant for the defendants in the proceedings before the House of Lords
15/10/2007 - Appointment of Compass Chambers QC to Crown Office
Compass Chambers are very pleased to announce that Gary Allan QC, one of its regulatory crime and professional discipline team, has accepted the invitation of the Lord Advocate to enter Crown Office as a Senior Advocate Depute. He takes up his appointment on 1 November 2007. Of his appointment, Gary commented “I have admired the work done in Crown Office all my professional life. It has always seemed such a hard and often thankless challenge. Although I have been an ad hoc depute for many years, the new challenge of entering Crown Office as a senior advocate depute at such a time of change, and the possibility of making a real contribution was one I could no longer resist. I am looking forward to working with very able people in all areas of Crown Office work, but I am particularly pleased that there will be an opportunity there for me to pursue my continuing special interest in health and safety and environmental law prosecutions, as well as other regulatory matters”. Whilst during his period in Crown Office Gary will obviously be unable to undertake criminal defence work, he intends to maintain his professional discipline practice.
15/10/2007 - Nicola Penman or McKinlay v Score (Europe) Ltd, Jury Trial
Lady Clark of Calton, 15 October 2007
The pursuer, a woman aged 27, sustained severe injury when her left hand was trapped in a lathe. She lost her ring and small finger and part of her hand and developed phantom pain and post-traumatic stress disorder. She was unable to return to her previous work but had been able to undertake lighter IT work. She claimed damages for the cost of two cosmetic hand prostheses. The Jury were provided with copies of the relevant actuarial tables (Ogden, 6th edition) to calculate future loss of earnings, in the event that they considered it was appropriate to approach future wage loss on a multiplier/multiplicand basis. This was the first case where a Jury employed the Tables in calculating future wage loss – in this case, the sum of £167,000. Solatium awarded was £100,000 and prosthetic costs £103,000.
DI Mackay QC and Astrid Smart of Compass Chambers represented the pursuer at the Jury Trial.
18/09/2007 - Henderson v Sutherland
(Lord Eassie 18th September 2007) http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/ opinions/2007CSOH158.html
This was a claim for personal injury following a road accident. The pursuer had been employed as a prison officer, and had been taken hostage some years before. He suffered PTSD as a result, but returned to work. He then had the road accident, but again returned to work.
He subsequently became unable to fulfill his duties and retired from the Prison Service.
The important legal issue raised was that the pursuer had previously claimed damages for the PTSD against the prison service. They argued that the cause of his termination of employment was the accident and not the hostage taking situation. However, the claim was ultimately settled without a proof. Part of the settlement figure was clearly in respect of wage loss for the past and future.
In the case before Lord Eassie, the defender argued that the settlement figure in the previous case should be taken in to account in some way. However, the pursuer successfully argued that the payment in the previous action was legally irrelevant as it amounted to a payment similar to an ex gratia payment, even though in the context of a litigation.
Senior Counsel for the pursuer was Andrew Smith QC of Compass Chambers.
06/09/2007 - Billy McGhie v Diageo PLC
This was an appeal against a decision of the Lord Ordinary, in the exercise of his discretion, to refuse an application to amend and discharge a proof that was imminent. The Inner House was persuaded on appeal that the Lord Ordinary had failed to exercise his discretion properly and allowed the appeal. Reference was made to a number of authorities on the question of amendment, discharge of diets and the exercise of discretion in appeals cases.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007CSIH68.html
Counsel for the Appellant, Andrew Smith QC of Compass Chambers
20/08/2007 - Two New Silks in Compass Chambers
Compass Chambers are delighted that on 20 August 2007 two members of their junior bar were appointed Queen’s Counsel. Jamie Gilchrist QC and Gary Allan QC are both experienced former solicitors and members of Compass Chambers regulatory crime and professional discipline team. Jamie called in 1994 and was an advocate depute from 1999 until 2001. As well as being a hugely experienced court practitioner, his attention to detail, skill and diligence have caused his recruitment to the defence team presently preparing the appeal of the Lockerbie accused referred to the Court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. He was appointed a part time sheriff in 2006. Gary called in the same calling group in 1994 and has pursued a successful career at the defence bar where, as well as in general crime, he has in more recent years developed an expertise and special interest in regulatory crime and professional discipline. He has been an advocate depute ad hoc since 2001 and has appeared before the discipline tribunals of a wide range of professional bodies as diverse as farriers and midwives both as prosecutor and defence counsel.
10/07/2007 - Fegan v Highland Council (2007) CSIH 44
In this appeal to the Inner House from a proof in Wick Sheriff Court, the pursuer was represented by Bruce Erroch (and, at the appeal, Alan Dewar QC) and the defenders were represented by Robert Milligan. The pursuer had fallen from a cliff top in Thurso, suffering catastrophic injuries. Although the pursuer could not remember how she had fallen, she had been sitting on a bench a few feet from the top of the cliff shortly before the accident. Her case was that the bench acted as a trap or an allurement to go too close to the unguarded cliff top. The sheriff held that the pursuer had failed to prove how the accident had happened and in any event that there was no duty on an occupier to guard against natural and obvious dangers, such as cliffs. The Inner House refused the appeal, on the basis that the sheriff was entitled to make the findings that he did. Lord Johnston, delivering the opinion of the court, concluded that “The sheriff, who not only heard the evidence but also inspected the locus was entitled, in our view, to conclude that there were no unusual or special dangers at the locus requiring the occupier to take precautions such as the erection of fencing. In many ways the issue for the sheriff was a jury question in respect of which it has to be shown that the trial judge, i.e. the sheriff, plainly misdirected himself or plainly reached a wrong decision on the facts. We find it quite impossible to assert that in this case.”
09/07/2007 - Mary Elizabeth McClelland v Dumfries & Galloway Council
Sheriff Ross
Dumfries Sheriff Court
9th July 2007
This is one of the first cases in Scotland to consider the relationship between a claim for occupational stress and the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. It highlights some important distinctions between the provisions in Scotland and those in England.
The pursuer sought damages at common law and under the 1997 Act for the alleged conduct of one of her fellow employees. The defenders were assoilzied and the sheriff made the following observations in relation to the 1997 Act and the decision of the House of Lords in Majrowski v St. Guy’s and St. Thomas’s NHS Trust [2007] 1 AC 224:
“[44]…The scheme of the 1997 Act differs for Scotland and England. In England harassment is a criminal offence. In Scotland it is not but the legislation (section 8(5)) allows a person to obtain an order to restrain behaviour which amounts to harassment, either in civil proceedings or in criminal proceedings following a conviction of an offence involving harassment…Of course, Scots law has as a tool to deal with such behaviour the flexible and wide ranging offence of breach of the peace. Conduct likely to cause alarm or distress can “sustain criminal liability” in terms of that offence. It is not clear from what Lord Nicholls said [in Majrowski] whether he had in mind by “sustain” the nature of the conduct itself or he proof of that conduct…So in a civil claim brought in terms of section 8(2), it may be best simply to apply the words of section 8(1) but inform any consideration of them with how the courts have approached the issue of causing a person alarm or distress in the context of a charge of breach of the peace”
Although the decision has not been reported, copies of the judgement can be obtained through Compass Chambers from Irene Mackenzie.
The defenders were represented by Robert Milligan of Compass Chambers (instructed by Simpson & Marwick, Edinburgh).
06/07/2007 - The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
THE ROYAL PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN STATUTORY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: LORD FRASER OF CARMYLLIE QC
RE: SHEILA COVENTRY
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6768873.stm
Mrs Coventry had been registered with The Royal Pharmaceutical Society for approximately 20 years when she was referred to the Statutory Committee of the RPS to face an Inquiry into the circumstances of her conviction at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in respect of an allegation of assault to injury for which she had been sentenced to 120 hours’ community service in December 2005.It was alleged on behalf of the Society that the circumstances of the offence disclosed behaviour which was likely to have brought the profession into disrepute or undermined the public confidence in the profession to a degree which rendered Mrs Coventry unfit to remain on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists.
Following an Inquiry before the Statutory Committee on 21 and 22 May 2007 the Statutory Committee concluded that,
“ We have to determine whether the conviction indicates such reprehensible conduct on the part of a pharmacist that her registration should be removed. In the particular circumstances of Mrs Coventry’s case, we draw back from making that direction for her removal….The public interest is, in our opinion, best served by having high quality pharmacists who are skilled, helpful and courteous to the public. That appears to us to be the more appropriate test of securing public confidence in the profession. Of course, there are convictions of such gravity that no right-thinking member of the community could retain confidence in a profession which turned a blind eye on such criminal misconduct. We have not done that in the past and we shall not do so in the future”.
The Statutory Committee accepted submissions made on behalf of Mrs Coventry that she was an exceptionally able and caring pharmacist, that the offence of which she had been convicted was, on any view, wholly out of character, and that there was no risk of repetition of the conduct which had led to her conviction. In those circumstances, the Statutory Committee restricted the penalty imposed to a reprimand and made no order that Mrs Coventry be removed from the Register.
Mrs Coventry was represented by Peter Gray QC.
02/07/2007 - Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations to be considered by the House of Lords
The recent decision of the Inner House on the application of PUWER, Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown & Root (see http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007CSIH23.html) has been appealed by the pursuer to the House of Lords. The Second Division ruled, following the English Court of Appeal’s decision in Hammond v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis ([2004] ICR 1467, that the PUWER regulations do not apply to an item which is being repaired. Leave to appeal had been refused by both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in Hammond but, of course, no leave is required for Mr Spencer-Franks as a Scottish litigant. Accordingly, the scope of PUWER is to be considered by the Lords in due course.
Roddy Dunlop of Compass Chambers is counsel for the defenders and respondents.
02/07/2007 - Professional Discipline: Donald Findlay QC cleared of misconduct.
Donald Findlay QC has been cleared of professional misconduct following a hearing before the Faculty of Advocates Discipline Tribunal, chaired by Lord Coulsfield: see http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1034002007. Findlay was the subject of a complaint by two members of the public following a newspaper report narrating jokes that he had told at a sportsman’s dinner. The Tribunal rejected the complaints, holding that "It is clear that the two particular jokes complained of do not amount to conduct which either did or would reasonably be expected to give rise to offence to a significant proportion of the community."Roddy Dunlop of Compass Chambers was junior counsel to Mr Findlay.
14/06/2007 - McNamara & Frost v Levy & McRae [5th June 2007]
The pursuers raised an action of professional negligence against their former solicitors for a sum just under 5.5 million. The action was originally raised in the sheriff court. Throughout the substantive procedure in that forum, the defenders instructed Senior Counsel to appear. The action was subsequently remitted to the Court of Session. At that time no sanction for the employment of counsel had been granted by the sheriff. The action was eventually dismissed. The defenders enrolled a motion for sanction. The late Lord Dawson deemed this unnecessary and made no order. Accounts were prepared and at taxation, the Auditor of Court refused to allow Senior Counsel's charges in respect of the sheriff court procedure as sanction had not been granted. A note of objection was taken on the basis that the rules of court provide that, on remit, an action which emanated from the sheriff court was to "proceed as if it had been an action in the court initiated by a summons." As such, the action was to be treated as if it had always been in the Court of Session. Accordingly, sanction was unnecessary. Lord MacPhail agreed with this interpretation and approach. In the event that that submission had been rejected, a fresh motion for the sanction for Senior Counsel was made. Lord MacPhail accepted that the exceptional circumstances of the case made such a motion (after taxation) competent. Furthermore, these circumstances would have justified his granting such a motion had it been necessary to do so.
12/06/2007 - Judicial review: No early release for “denier”
David Laidlaw v Parole Board for Scotland
A petition for judicial review was brought by a convicted rapist against the Parole Board for Scotland: see http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007CSOH98.html . The petitioner had consistently denied his guilt. He was refused early release on Parole, and sought Judicial Review, claiming that the reasons given by the Parole Board were insufficient. He contended that the Parole Board had focused only on his denial of guilt. Lord McEwan disagreed, holding that the Board’s reasons were intelligible and adequate. It was entirely appropriate to take into account the denial of guilt, and that was not the only reason for refusing early release. Having regard to questions of risk and the paramount need to protect the public, the decision of the Board was not amenable to challenge.
Roddy Dunlop of Compass Chambers was junior counsel to the Board.
06/06/2007 - Hughes v Grampian [First Division, 18th May 2007]
This recent Inner House case provides an authoritative decision on two main issues.
The first is upon the interpretation of the Manual Handling Regulations. The court made it clear that in considering what a "load" is, a common sense approach had to be taken to it. The load had to be material to be relevant. An operation is not a "load" under the regulations, simply by the fact that something is moved or transported. This important decision means that claims under the regulations are more difficult for pursuers to succeed in.
The second important point about the case is that it permitted the use of video evidence on appeal, but doubted whether this was a proper way of conducting an appeal against a factual judgment.
It is unclear whether an appeal will be marked to the House of Lords by the pursuer's solicitors.