Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Judicial Review of the actions and proposed actions of Andrew Watson, Shane Watson, Richard Bagley, Jeff Prowse and Garry Russell relative to the purported operation of the disciplinary processes of BLUK against the petitioner
For third, fourth and fifth Respondents and first and second interested parties: Currie QC; Marney; DWF Biggart Baillie;
For first and second respondents and third interested party: Lord Davidson of Glen Clova, QC; Ms Ower; Dundas & Wilson
[6] I do not intend to undertake any exhaustive analysis of the various cases or the few documents produced. They do not present me with a complete picture. One was much redacted and the other not available to me. Without answers lodged and more disclosure I am quite unable to conclude that there is a strong or any case against the petitioner to justify what has happened, and so at present in relation to the CFT account the petitioner is entitled again to say "Who is my accuser?. What is your evidence?".
[7] I further think, from what is averred and what I was told, that any neutral informed observer would conclude that a number of persons with an adverse interest to him have altered the rules about discipline and have accused and judged the petitioner. The placing of three minority shareholders on the appeal committee merely compounds this.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.