Outer House dismisses large part of £7+ million claim over negligent installation of wind turbines

By Mitchell Skilling

Arthur Simmers raised an action against Green Cat Renewables Ltd and Green Cat Contracting Ltd seeking over £7 million in losses arising from the installation of the turbines in their present locations. The defenders’ principal submission was that, insofar as the pursuer was suing in respect of transfer of loss claims relating to business vehicles he had established, the action was irrelevant and ought to be dismissed.

The case was heard by Lord Braid in the Outer House of the Court of Session. Thomson KC and Mitchell, advocate, appeared for the pursuer and Barne KC for the defenders.

Legal black hole

In May and June 2016, the pursuer contracted with the defenders, as consulting engineers and contractors respectively, in relation to the design and construction of three wind turbines in Rothienorman, Aberdeenshire. The turbines were to be erected on land leased to three Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) incorporated by the pursuer, with the objective of having them accredited for the purposes of the Feed-In Tariffs Scheme to generate income for the SPVs.

The pursuer’s principal complaint was that the turbines were erected at the wrong locations, and therefore not at the locations for which consent had been granted, and he averred that he and the SPVs had suffered losses through breach of contract, and separately the fault and negligence, of both defenders. The total loss, estimated by reference to the risk of revocation of the FIT accreditation and inability to maximise the energy generation of the turbines, was said to be approximately £7.18 million, split equally by the SPVs.

It was submitted for the pursuer that, following the decision of the Inner House in Forthwell Ltd v Pontegadea UK Ltd (2024), there was some support for the existence of a transferred loss principle in Scots law, as to prevent particular losses from falling into a legal black hole. The relevant question was not whether the pursuer must suffer the consequences of the arrangements put in place, but instead if the loss should be allowed to go uncompensated.

For the defenders it was submitted that the SPVs were entitled to sue the defenders in their own right by virtue of the jus quaesitium tertio, which was Scots law’s true solution to the legal black hole. If a transferred loss principle was recognised, it was not available to the pursuer as there was neither a transfer of heritage from one company to another nor an intercompany transfer.

Unfortunate outcome

In his decision, Lord Braid said of the existence of a transferred loss principle: “The ratio of Forthwell is narrow, and that case does provide some support for the view that the current state of the law is that in some circumstances a loss sustained by a third party can be recovered by a pursuer, at least where there was a contractual intention to benefit that party, or where property has been transferred. Beyond that, however, I acknowledge that it is difficult to discern from Forthwell any encouragement for a right to recover such a loss in any other circumstance.”

He noted that the pursuer had avoided the pitfalls that led to the demise of the claim in Forthwell but added: “The biggest problem for the pursuer is that he avers that neither the proposal (issued by the first defender to the pursuer) nor the contract demonstrates an intention as between the parties to benefit the SPVs. Senior counsel for the pursuer made a valiant attempt to draw a distinction between an intention to benefit a third party, and an intention that a third party should be able to sue under the contract, only the latter giving rise to a jus quaesitum tertio. That may well be so, but the averment in question unequivocally addresses the former.”

Assessing the impact of the Forthwell case, Lord Braid said: “To the extent that Forthwell might offer a glimmer of hope to third parties in some situations that a transferred loss might be recoverable, the pursuer does not make relevant averments to bring himself within the limited circumstances where that might be the case. On the contrary, his pleaded case expressly disavows the very circumstance which might have been relevant.”

He concluded: “In many ways, this is an unfortunate outcome, not least as the defenders aver that the SPVs would have had a right to sue by virtue of the creation of a jus quaesitum tertio, which the pursuer denies. That could only have been determined after proof, and had the pursuer been successful in resisting this aspect of the defence, it is possible that the court might have held, on the defenders’ pleadings, that there was an intention to benefit the SPVs, but not such as to create a jus quaesitum tertio.”

Lord Braid therefore dismissed the transferred loss elements of the pursuer’s claim, and fixed a by order hearing to hear addresses on the precise terms of the interlocutor to be pronounced.

Child Poverty Act has not led to ‘sustained progress’

The Child Poverty (Scotland) Act was passed by the Parliament in 2017 and aimed to tackle, report on and measure child poverty. It also established targets relating to the eradication of child poverty by 2030. The Scottish government will publish statistics that will outline whether it has met its interim targets in March.

The committee wanted to understand the impact of the Act, and in particular the difference that has been made by having a framework for reducing child poverty set in law.

In its report on post-legislative scrutiny of the Act, the committee has found that, while the Act has instilled an appetite and motivation to tackle child poverty, something most clearly demonstrated in the establishment of the Scottish Child Payment, it has not led to sustained progress towards reaching the Scottish government’s 2030 targets.

The report outlines a series of recommendations that could help the government make further progress, including encouraging a culture of collaborative working across portfolios and engaging with local authorities to understand whether they can reach the targets and what further resources they might need.

The committee also called on the government to share details on how its own research into child poverty in rural areas and in the islands has impacted on the Scottish government’s approach.

Collette Stevenson MSP, convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, said: “Our scrutiny has shown that the Child Poverty Act has helped ensure the Scottish government keeps its aim of eradicating child poverty focused in people’s minds.

“However, it looks as though more progress can be made towards achieving the targets that were set out in the act, so we are calling for change on a bigger scale to happen.

“We’re keen to hear more from the Scottish government about how it intends to do this so that it can meet its targets and make a real difference to the daily life of children and families in Scotland.”

In pictures: Lord Pentland becomes Scotland’s most senior judge

He said: “The solemn oaths I have just taken on my appointment as lord president of the Court of Session enshrine the fundamental values underpinning the judiciary: independence, impartiality and support for the rule of law. Every judge in Scotland, in each of our courts and tribunals, commits themselves when assuming judicial office to upholding these values. I renew my own dedication to them today.”

Opinion: Court of Session permits litigation on Scottish government’s DRS and UK internal market rules

On 28 January 2025, Lord Clark issued his opinion in Biffa Waste Services Limited v Scottish Ministers. Biffa contends that the Scottish government owed it (and failed to uphold) a duty of care in respect of its position as a logistics provider for the Deposit Return Scheme, which has now been delayed until October 2027, and argues that it relied on alleged assurances from the Scottish government that amounted to negligent misrepresentation. Biffa is seeking approximately £166 million in damages. The Scottish government sought to have the action dismissed on the basis of legal arguments that no such duty of care could exist and that the arguments about negligent misrepresentation were irrelevant. Lord Clark refused to dismiss the action and remitted the matter to proof.

The action is important because it is the first time in which the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIMA or the Act) is the subject of private (or indeed public) litigation to move beyond the early stages of court proceedings. Against the backdrop of possible reforms to the UK’s post-Brexit internal market rules, this development signals that Biffa v Scottish Ministers is likely to result in judicial comment on how public-private commercial relationships function in circumstances where the supplier’s obligations are contingent on the application of the internal market rules. That is likely to have important practical consequences. In this article, we consider the case and its implications.

Background: UK Internal Market Act 2020

The rules governing the trade among the constituent parts of the UK are set out in UKIMA. The Act was an important part of the raft of legislation passed during the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, when powers formerly exercised by EU institutions were repatriated and the UK would no longer be bound by the EU’s internal market rules. 

UKIMA contains two ‘market access principles’. In contrast to the EU’s internal market rules that preceded the Act, each market access principle is intricately defined and contains a framework of tests and qualifications that will affect which rules apply to a particular product, and in what circumstances internal regulatory divergence might be justifiable.

The first market access principle is the ‘mutual recognition’ principle, which provides that goods that have been produced in, or imported into, one part of the UK (the “originating part”), and which can be sold in their originating part without contravening any “relevant requirements” applying to their sale, may be sold in another part of the UK free from any “relevant requirements” that would otherwise apply to the sale in that other part of the UK. Generally, “relevant requirements” covered by the mutual recognition principle are obligations and conditions that need to be satisfied in order for goods to be placed on the market in one part of the UK.

The principle in action would mean that if there are different requirements about (for example) product labelling, the party placing the good on the market would only need to comply with the product labelling requirements of one part of the UK to be able to place the good on the market throughout the UK, regardless of the different rules.

The second market access principle is that of ‘non-discrimination’. The non-discrimination principle is that the sale of goods in one part of the UK should not be affected by “relevant requirements” that directly or indirectly discriminate against incoming goods with a “relevant connection” to an “originating part” and sold in the “destination part”. A “relevant requirement” that is capable of being caught by the non-discrimination principle is different to those that may be caught by the mutual recognition principle. For example, ‘manner of sale’ requirements (which regulate where, when, by whom, or whom or the price or other terms on which goods may be sold) are caught exclusively by the non-discrimination principle through the operation of the Act. A “relevant requirement” is of no effect in the destination part if (and to the extent that) it directly or indirectly discriminates against the incoming goods from the other part of the UK.

The Act’s complex provisions about the application of the mutual recognition or non-discrimination principle are generally beyond the scope of this article but suffice to say that the application of the post-Brexit internal market rules should be given careful consideration when they apply.

On its introduction, UKIMA is controversial in part because of how the market access principles interact with varying regulatory requirements, introduced by the devolved legislatures acting within their statutory competence. The UK government can, however, grant an exemption meaning that a particular set of rules will not be subject to the market access principles.

The Scottish government’s Deposit Return Scheme

In March 2020, the Scottish government announced its intention to establish a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), which would require drinks producers, importers, marketers, or anyone else offering goods for sale to pay a 20p deposit to place drinks containers made of metal, glass, or plastic on the market with the aim of encouraging recycling among the general public. Notionally, the deposit would be passed on to consumers at the point of purchase, who could recover the 20p when the container is returned for recycling. The other nations of the UK have also announced their intention to introduce Deposit Return Schemes of their own, but those intended schemes would not apply to glass drinks containers as the Scottish government’s does.

In UKIMA terms, the DRS would impose “relevant requirements” in terms of the market access principles. It would prohibit the marketing or sale of those goods if the producer is not registered with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, which applies to brand owners (if the product is branded in the UK), and importers (if it is branded elsewhere). That amounts to a “manner of sale” requirement which is caught by the non-discrimination principle, meaning that the implementing regulations would be of “no effect” if they are directly or indirectly discriminatory of goods that are produced in or pass through the rest of the UK to reach Scotland.

That leaves the DRS in a position where it would require an exemption from the scope of the market access principles to avoid the risk that it is of “no effect”. A temporary exclusion was granted by the UK government on the application of the Scottish government. The exemption was restricted in that it did not grant an exemption to the DRS from the scope of the market access principles as it relates to the sale and return of glass products, along with being conditional on commitments to ensure maximum interoperability of the UK’s Deposit Return Schemes and harmonising regulatory standards. Following the temporary exclusion, the Scottish government has now postponed the implementation of the DRS to 1 October 2027.

Biffa Waste Services Limited v Scottish Ministers

The private litigation brought by Biffa against the Scottish government concerns the manner in which the Scottish government sought to implement the DRS.

The Scottish government appointed Circularity Scotland Limited (CSL) as a scheme administrator in respect of the DRS. CSL is now in administration. In July 2022, Biffa entered into a contract with CSL in terms of which they became a “logistics provider” for the DRS, responsible for collecting, counting, transporting, and recycling material. Biffa and the Scottish government are then said to have engaged in correspondence in which the Scottish government made assurances that the DRS would be implemented. Biffa contends that it relied on assurances about the deliverability of the DRS and incurred significant upfront costs in preparation for the scheme amounting to £51.4 million.

Biffa are now seeking an award of damages from the Scottish government arising from the decision to delay the implementation of the DRS comprised of their upfront costs and lost profits of £114.8 million.

Biffa’s action is based on two alternative grounds

First, Biffa argues that the Scottish government owed a duty of care to Biffa because they assumed responsibility for the intergovernmental relations necessary to the implementation of the DRS (i.e., seeking an exclusion for the DRS from the internal market principles) and failed to discharge their duty of care in that respect.

Second, and alternatively, Biffa argues that it relied on a letter from Lorna Slater MSP (Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy, and Biodiversity, on behalf of the Scottish ministers) in which assurances were said to be given about the DRS. Biffa contends that the statements in the letter amounted to negligent misrepresentation.

The Scottish government sought to have the action dismissed, arguing that they were under no duty of care and in any case challenging the relevance of the action.

In a written opinion, Lord Clark refused to dismiss the action, and has ordered that the case will proceed to proof to establish whether the Scottish government was under a duty of care, whether any such duty would have been breached, and whether the terms of correspondence to Biffa about the DRS amounted to negligent misrepresentation.

Comment

Through its market access principles, one of the effects of the Act is arguably to make the operation of the internal market a matter for intergovernmental relations. That has not been the subject of extensive litigation to date and very few cases to date have referred to the UKIMA at all. The most substantial case ended in 2021, in which the General Counsel for Wales sought judicial declarations on the Act’s interaction with devolved legislative competence through judicial review proceedings. The action was unsuccessful on the basis that it was brought prematurely, and the court declined to consider the consistency of UKIMA with devolved legislative competence on a hypothetical basis. No intergovernmental dispute has materialised in court since then.

Within that context, the Biffa case is significant because it is the first time that the scheme of the UKIMA has been subject to judicial scrutiny in private litigation. The discrete legal questions that will decide the dispute (namely the alleged existence and breach of a duty of care and alleged misrepresentation) are highly fact-specific and governed by the law of delict (tort), which is not limited to cases involving UKIMA. However, Biffa v Scottish Ministers is likely to be important in determining the role of UKIMA at the public-private sector interface, where the services under contract fall within the scope of the market access principles, or their successful provision relies on an exemption being secured. If the court finds that a duty of care existed in this case, its decision on the nature of that duty will have practical consequences for how governmental bodies and suppliers’ contract and protect their respective positions.

On 23 January, the Department for Business and Trade launched a consultation as part of its review of the UKIMA. An area under consultation is the balance between the desired outcomes of free movement of goods within the UK and devolved legislative competence. Once the UK government has completed its review (expected to be by summer 2025), it is possible that it will introduce changes to the operation of the UKIMA. In the meantime, Biffa v Scottish Ministers will be closely monitored by those interested in how the internal market rules will influence public-private contractual relationships moving forward.

Richard McMeeken is a partner and Robin Mackintosh and a senior solicitor at Morton Fraser MacRoberts. This article first appeared here.

Good year for Pinsent Masons’ Scottish corporate team

The firm’s head of corporate in Scotland, Barry McCaig, said despite challenging conditions, finance would be available in 2025 for the “right deals”.

Key transactions last year included advising William Grant & Sons on the acquisition of iconic whisky brand Famous Grouse from Edrington and the sale of Scottish engineering firm RJ McLeod to OCU Group, while other notable transactions included the acquisition by Russell Group of the Coatbridge Intermodal Rail Terminal from Freightliner.

Pinsent Masons’ corporate energy team, led by Glasgow-based global head of oil & gas, Rosalie Chadwick, was to the fore in advising Ithaca Energy on its £754 million combination with Eni S.p.A. through Ithaca’s acquisition of substantially all of the Italian operator’s UK upstream oil and gas assets, and was also engaged in advising on the contested takeover of AIM-listed Trinity Exploration & Production plc by Lease Holders.

Renewable energy transactions were undertaken across the UK by Scottish lawyers and deals included the sale of the offshore transmission assets of the Moray East Offshore Wind Farm, acting for E.ON on one of the UK’s largest battery storage projects, and advising Tesco on a deal which secures 10 per cent of its electricity requirements from a new solar park.

The firm’s commercial property experts also advised Motor Fuel Group on the £2.5 billion acquisition of 337 petrol forecourts and more than 400 EV charging sites from Morrisons supermarket chain.

The firm’s banking team in Aberdeen, led by Richard Scott, advised lender clients operating in the energy sector on a number of fundraising projects collectively valued at almost £700m, including a £150m lending facility from a group of banks for clean energy group D2Zero, and a £70m revolving credit facility which funded Ashtead Technology’s acquisition of Seatronics and J2 Subsea Ltd.

Also in Aberdeen, the energy team advised Glenn Inniss Investment Limited, the sponsor of the management buyout of international oil and gas services business Proserv; advised on Norwegian operator DNO’s acquisition of a 25 per cent interest in the UKCS Arran field from ONE-Dyas E&P; and on the partial divestment of Uruguayan interests by Challenger Energy Group and the partial divestment of Moroccan interests by Sound Energy.

Pinsent Masons partner Barry McCaig, head of corporate in Scotland, said the firm’s lawyers had played a central role in some of 2024’s most important transactions but he is cautious that the corporate deals market remains challenging due to economic uncertainty and rising wage costs.

He said: “Our strong local offering, with more than 550 staff in Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow allied to diverse sector experience and a global presence in 27 locations, ensures we are in a strong position to advise clients in major UK and cross-border international transactions.

“The delay in implementing widely forecast cuts in interest rates has dented confidence in the market and tighter lending conditions or a more conservative approach by mainstream lenders make it a more challenging environment. That said, as demonstrated by the wide range of multi-million-pound deals we have advised on in the last 12 months, finance is available for the right deals.”

Legislation laid confirming new national wages

Announced at last year’s budget, the 6.7 per cent increase to the national living wage which will be worth £1,400 a year for an eligible full-time worker.

The national minimum wage for 18-20-year-olds is also set to increase by £1.40 to £10 per hour – a record increase which means full-time younger workers eligible for the rate will see their pay boosted by £2,500 a year.

An impact assessment also published today shows that these reforms will put around £1.8 billion into the pockets of workers over the next six years.

Employment rights minister Justin Madders said: “Economic growth only matters if working people are feeling the benefits. This will be a welcome pay bump for millions of workers who in turn will spend more in the real economy boosting our high streets.

“Our Plan for Change is putting money back into people’s pockets and delivering better living standards across the country.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said: “This government promised a genuine living wage for working people that will support people with the cost of living, creating a workforce that is fit and ready to help us deliver number one mission to growth the economy.

“This pay boost for millions of workers is a significant step towards delivering on that promise.”

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner added: “We’ve taken quick and sensible action to boost wages for millions of lower paid workers who are the backbone and future of our economy. 

“This is us fulfilling our promise to make work pay and improve living standards across the country, with record boosts to support young people and apprentices - our skilled workers of tomorrow.”

The national minimum wage is the minimum amount an employer must pay per hour for most workers, while the national living wage is the higher rate that applies to workers aged 21 and over.

This is the first time the national living wage has taken into account the cost of living and inflation and marks the first step towards aligning the national minimum wage for 18–20-year-olds and national living wage to create a single adult wage rate.

Miscarriages of justice body to assess Lucy Letby application

Ms Letby, a former nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital, is currently serving 15 whole-life prison terms following her convictions at Manchester Crown Court in August 2023 and July 2024.

Her trials totalled almost 10 months and followed a complex police investigation lasting several years.

Her murders drew enormous international attention – including from amateur sleuths who maintain Letby is innocent.

Barrister Mark McDonald, now representing her, has made an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) on her behalf.

A spokesperson for the CCRC said: “We are aware that there has been a great deal of speculation and commentary surrounding Lucy Letby’s case, much of it from parties with only a partial view of the evidence.

“We ask that everyone remembers the families affected by events at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

“We have received a preliminary application in relation to Ms Letby’s case, and work has begun to assess the application. We anticipate further submissions being made to us.”

They added: “It is not for the CCRC to determine innocence or guilt in a case, that’s a matter for the courts.

“It is for the CCRC to find, investigate and if appropriate, refer potential miscarriages of justice to the appellate courts when new evidence or new argument means there is a real possibility that a conviction will not be upheld, or a sentence reduced.

“At this stage it is not possible to determine how long it will take to review this application. A significant volume of complicated evidence was presented to the court in Ms Letby’s trials.

“The CCRC is independent. We do not work for the government, courts, police, the prosecution or for anyone applying for a review of their case. This helps us investigate alleged miscarriages of justice impartially.”

Baroness Smith of Cluny KC to deliver ALP lecture

The lecture, which is being held on 21 March, serves as a platform for leading legal figures to share their expertise with students, professionals, and the wider public.

Baroness Smith said: “I was glad to accept the invitation to speak at the Aberdeen Law Project’s annual lecture. I admire the project, in particular their aims to bridge the justice gap in the north east, and to offer students the opportunity to gain legal experience. Inclusion, greater diversity within the legal sector, and access to justice are issues that I’ve long valued, and I look forward to the opportunity to give this year’s keynote address.”

Soma Mehmood, student director, said: “We are delighted to welcome Baroness Smith of Cluny KC as our keynote speaker for this year’s annual lecture. Her distinguished career and dedication to upholding the rule of law make her a true inspiration for aspiring legal professionals.”

England: Judges warned about social media use amid safety fears

In a letter to judges, Baroness Carr said she was “increasingly concerned” about threats and abuse targeting the judiciary.

“As many of you will be aware, incidents threatening or compromising judicial safety are becoming all too common, both inside and outside of the courtroom and online as well as physical. Any incident where your security is compromised is taken with the utmost seriousness,” she said.

A new “operational security” taskforce will assess both physical security measures in courts and the risks posed by online threats and abuse.

The guidance issued to judges advises: “Do not refer, or even allude, to being a judge in your social media profile or anything you post on social media.” Judges are also warned against sharing personal details, posting identifiable photos, and assuming social media interactions are private.

Judicial security protocols are being updated following a series of incidents, including an attack on senior family court judge Patrick Perusko, who was assaulted with a radiator during a hearing in Milton Keynes.

In response to growing security concerns, judges have been advised they can issue judicial orders requiring high-risk individuals to attend court remotely via video. Where courts have cells and a sufficient number of security staff, they have been reminded that contempt of court is a “valuable judicial tool” for managing disruptive behaviour.

A pilot scheme at London’s main family court which saw judges eschew formal robes to make the experience less intimidating has abandoned the change after reports of “increasingly common” violent incidents causing apprehension among the judiciary.

Sir Andrew McFarlane, the most senior family law judge, said there had been a “relatively high” number of incidents, including knives being confiscated at the court’s entrance.

Baroness Carr’s letter states: “Security training for civil, family, tribunal judges and members and coroners is due to be launched in the spring and will bring together all available guidance.

“The training will contain scenario-based examples, a video from HM courts and tribunal service security explaining their roles, as well as information from the police on identifying verbal and non-verbal cues.”

Event: Creating a Culture of Belonging in the Scottish Legal Profession

DBS has also announced six new legal partners: Addleshaw Goddard, Brodies, Thorntons Solicitors, McGovern Reid Court Lawyers, Scullion Law and Shepherd and Wedderburn.

To register for the event click here.

Quote of the day

If we have learned one thing from the history of invention and discovery, it is that, in the long run — and often in the short one — the most daring prophecies seem laughably conservative.

Arthur C. Clarke, ‘The Exploration of Space’ (1951)

And finally… hackles down

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWG) has suggested strict new measures on outdoor cats because of their “significant impact on wildlife populations”, the BBC reports.

However, Mr Swinney has swiftly responded that his government has “absolutely no intention of banning cats” and affirmed that a cat curfew is off the cards as well.

The overwhelming majority of cat owners in Europe, including in the UK, allow their pet cats to roam free.

It’s only in the likes of the US and Australia where cat owners tend to keep their pets confined to their homes – which cat charities in the UK say is worse for their physical and mental health.

The SAWG report risks inflaming the feline culture war, with fiery arguments between European and American cat owners often playing out on social media.

On TikTok, videos of young Americans lecturing their European counterparts, often describing allowing cats to go outside as a form of animal abuse, receive tens of thousands of likes.

The Scottish government says it will continue to review the recommendations of the SAWG report.

How to Successfully Set Up All-In-One Practice Management Software in 2025

Too often, law firms jump straight to exploring tech solutions, lured by sales pitches and flashy presentations. This rush often overlooks critical planning phases, leading to costly mismatches between technology and firm needs. Without thorough preparation, the chosen system might fail to address key pain points, resulting in wasted investment, downtime, and morale issues.

Click here to read about the six phases of a successful tech implementation.

New edition of Succession Law Essentials out now!

Concise treatment of the law of succession covering cases where the deceased left a will (testate succession) and where there was no will (intestate succession)

• Digest of essential cases and legislation
• Coverage of new statutory developments including the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024
• Provides an up-to-date statement of the law, incorporating legal developments such as the Succession (Scotland) Act 2016, the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 and the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act 2024
• Serves as an accessible entry point to the law of succession, with clear and easy-to-follow language
• The new edition also includes expanded material on executry and consideration of some novel issues in succession including the treatment of digital assets within the law.

Get 30% with discount code ESSENTIALS30 from the EUP website. Offer ends Saturday, 31 May.

Clark Foundation for Legal Education now open for applications

In furtherance of the above, the Foundation’s trustees invite applications for Grants and Scholarships from post-graduate and under-graduate students to assist them with courses of study in Scots law, or comparative legal systems, or the law of the European Community, or foreign languages or business management or to undertake research into Scots Law and /or its relationship with other legal systems or to attend international student competitions and conferences.  The trustees will also consider applications from persons practising law in Scotland, whether as solicitors or advocates, those teaching Scots law, those arranging conferences, seminars and lectures, and those involved in research in, and the writing of legal text books or other publications or presentations on Scots law and/or its relationship with other legal systems or the institutions of the European Community. Applications may also be made for Grants to provide facilities and equipment (including computers and other IT, hardware, software or peripheral equipment) for study and research including for the establishment and maintenance of libraries and study centres.

The grant and amount of any award, and the period for which it is to run, is within the discretion of the trustees.

Awards will be made in September 2025 and all applications, which are to be completed on a standard application form available by downloading from the Foundation website (www.clarkfoundation.org.uk) or upon request to the email address noted below, must be submitted in electronic form by no later than 31 March 2025. Please note that the Foundation does not support students studying for LLB/Diploma in Professional Legal Practice

Please send your completed application before the stated deadline by email to: clarkfoundation@lindsays.co.uk

Are you a law firm partner wishing things could be different in 2025?

• Fed up with office politics?
• Annoyed with the decisions made?
• Frustrated by some of your fellow partners?
• Disgruntled by the way the cake is divided up?
• Confused why you ended up in charge of HR or IT?
• Wishing you could concentrate on just doing the law?

Becoming a partner in a law firm is an incredible achievement. You have worked really hard to get there, following the traditional path.
However, maybe it is not giving you the satisfaction or fulfilment you thought it would?

Would you like to change all of that?

Now, imagine your future. One that gives you more of the fees you generate; complete freedom of how, where and when you work; and allows you to focus on doing the legal work that you love to do.

If you are a law firm partner, and wish things could be different in 2025, then find out now if Plug & Play Law is the answer for you.

What is Plug & Play Law?

Plug & Play is a term coined by Mitch Kowalski in his book ‘The Great Legal Reformation: Notes from the Field’. A book that features Inksters.
Mitch Kowalski refers to Plug & Play Platforms when describing law firms such as Inksters who have developed a model where senior lawyers can work as a collective, with enhanced technology and back-office support.

Inksters and Plug & Play Law

Inksters is the foremost Plug & Play Law firm in Scotland. Specifically with, by far, the largest number of consultant solicitors and the greatest geographical reach. Inksters have operated and perfected this model for 12 years and been in business as a law firm for over 25 years.

Discover whether Plug & Play Law is the right fit for you

If you are a law firm partner, and wish things could be different in 2025, then complete the Plug & Play Law scorecard online. There are just 11 simple questions and it takes less than 60 seconds to complete. You will then receive an immediate personalised report on whether Plug & Play Law is a good fit for you. Completing it could be better than making a new year’s resolution!