Call us now: 0141 429 8166
Call us now: 0141 429 8166
In a recent case, our client’s 12-year-old daughter was refused a placing request in S1 at the secondary school of choice, which was a highly rated and sought-after secondary school in Glasgow. The family lived just outwith the designated catchment area for that secondary school in question, and the child had attended a feeder primary school since primary one on a placing request.
All her primary 7 school friends had a place in the preferred secondary. In addition, the refusal of a place would cause logistical problems for her parents in getting her to and from school as they both worked and had a pre-existing care arrangement in place which was not practical unless she attended the selected school. The distance to the catchment secondary school was longer, and the child would be left to travel there on public transport by herself. Further, the child had been part of a music club at primary school and was very keen to remain part of the school band with her friends once she started Secondary. This would not be possible if she could not attend the chosen school. The child was becoming increasingly overwhelmed and upset at the prospect of being away from her friends when starting secondary.
The placing request had been refused by the local authority due to the school of choice being full to capacity and they maintained they would have to employ another teacher and also extend the school premises if the placing request was granted. An appeal was made to the Sheriff Court Appeal by way of Summary Application, and at the hearing the Sheriff heard oral evidence from three witnesses from local authority, and also from the parents of the child. The Sheriff also gave detailed consideration to a written submission from the child herself, expressing her feelings about the impact of the refusal on her. At the conclusion of the evidence, we made a detailed legal submission referring to the right of parental choice in education, the “Parents Charter” and to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was submitted that the impact on the child and family, of the refusal of the placing request was significant.
Ultimately the Sheriff accepted our clients’ evidence, and agreed with our position. The court held that despite the local authority having valid statutory reasons to refuse the request, after considering the whole circumstances of the case, he was willing to use his discretion and hold that the council had not discharged the onus on it to show that refusing to place the child at the school of choice was reasonable. The default position in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is unless a refusal can be shown by the local authority to be reasonable in the circumstances, the child must be placed in the school of choice. The court therefore refused to uphold the Education Committee’s decision to refuse the placing request, and the child was accordingly placed in the selected school, much to her own and her parents’ delight. In this instance the parents were also awarded the judicial expense of their application.
We have frequently won placing request appeals to the Sheriff Court, and feel passionate about helping parents to secure the right education for their children. If you wish placing request or appeal advice, please do not hesitate to contact our Team.
In a contentious specific issue order action our client, who is a USA citizen, sought relocation of her four year old son back to live with her in the USA. The child’s father was Scottish, and the child had been born and lived all his life in the UK. Our client was isolated after the separation, and sought to reside closer to family and friends in the USA. Despite offering generous contact including sharing the travel burden, her request to relocate the child was strongly contested, which led to her raising an application to the Sheriff for a specific issue order for relocation. Like many such family cases, the dispute was very stressful for the parties, and given the need for certainty about where the child’s future lay, we were able to ensure that the case was given priority and fast tracked by the Sheriff.
The father argued that his own bond with the child would be diminished by the move and he invited the Sheriff to refuse the mother permission to relocate and to dismiss her action. In presenting our client’s case we provided he court with detailed and vouched information covering all aspects of the child’s potential new life in the USA. The aim of this was to highlight beyond doubt that all the implications of the move, including health, education, medical, housing and social had been considered. By doing this we were able to demonstrate to the court the ways in which the advantages for the child of a permanent move to the USA, outweighed any disadvantages, and that all the necessary practical care and living arrangements for the child there would be in place.
In the leading case on specific issue orders / relocation, the Court of Session as Court of appeal in Scotland determined that there is no onus of proof in specific issue order relocation action, and no presumption in favour of the residential parent (unlike the position in England); and that each case depends on the court’s assessment of the “complex mosaic of facts” presented to it. In this particular case, among other factors, being away from her own extended family and feeling isolated in the UK, was impacting our client’s own emotional wellbeing, which also had a consequential impact on the child. The court was ultimately persuaded by the nature and quality of evidence presented by our client, and she was successful in proving that the order she sought was in the child’s best interests so the child was allowed to relocate to live permanently with her in the USA.
After a six day murder trial at the High Court of Justiciary in Glasgow the client was found guilty by the jury under deletion of much of the charge.
An appeal was taken on the basis that what the jury left in the charge didn’t adequately amount to a charge of assault as it didn’t chime with what the Crown evidence was or how they were charged in respect of the mechanism of the assault by the trial judge. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant by Senior Counsel, Brian McConnachie QC, that the charge that remained didn’t make sense and the jury should be directed to reconsider their verdict.
This course of action was not, however, adopted by the trial judge and conviction followed. Mr Goldie however successfully appealed his murder conviction. The decision of the appeal court can be read here.
A recent study from the BBC has highlighted that inspections at Scotland’s care homes fell by more than 90% during the first two months of the pandemic. At the same time, deaths from COVID-19 in care homes rose dramatically, eventually outstripping those in hospitals.
Calls have been made for independent inquiries to examine the procedures and policies operating in care homes during the pandemic and whether families’ loved ones, who were amongst the most vulnerable in society, were sufficiently protected from the impact of the pandemic.
Livingstone Brown has been instructed on behalf of several families to seek answers from care homes and public authorities on the deaths of their loved ones. We have a specialist team of solicitors who are able to investigate families’ concerns with empathy, respect and thoroughness.
Kevin Pike, head of the firm’s Personal Injury practice unit, can be contacted confidentially to discuss any concerns from family members on 0141 429 8166 or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Where appropriate, we can set up joint video meetings (using Zoom, FaceTime or Teams) with wider family groups.
Our firm (principal Solicitor, Mark Allison) represented Police Constable Harper in a complex ligation against her employer, the Police Service of Scotland, relating to whistleblowing and Equality Act victimisation claims spanning a number of years. The case proceeded to a lengthy hearing on the question of liability, and Constable Harper was successful in proving that she had suffered serious victimisation at the hands of a Senior Police Officer. The outcome in relation to remedy (issues of compensation etc) is still to be determined by the Tribunal.
Livingstone Brown is a leading firm of Scottish solicitors. Based in Glasgow, but dealing with cases around the country, the firm has been at the forefront of legal service provision for over thirty years.
If you have a legal problem, getting good quality legal information at the earliest stage can be invaluable. The firm offers a free initial enquiry service; all you have to do is call in, telephone, or e-mail. You won't be charged for your enquiry; we'll let you know by return whether we can help, what we can do, and how much it's likely to cost. We can also offer legal aid where available.
Led by former senior partner Gerard Brown CBE, who continues as a consultant, the firm has built up an enviable reputation for quality of service and client care.
The firm has won various awards over the years. In the 2019 edition of the prestigious Legal 500 rankings Livingstone Brown was ranked as a 'top-tier' firm for general criminal work, and is also recommended for fraud cases. Stuart Munro and Gerard Brown were named as 'Recommended Lawyers'. In the Chambers directory the firm has a Band 1 ranking for criminal work, and Stuart Munro is a ranked financial crime lawyer. The firm was named Criminal Defence Firm of the Year and Family Law Team of the Year at the Scottish Legal Awards 2019.
Reliable, expert advice you can trust. Get in touch today
