Outer House rules woman who instructed English solicitors for Scottish damages case cannot recover full account in expenses

By Mitchell Skilling

Thelem Assurances, the defender in the action raised by Dr Margaret Kirkwood, objected to the original account, which led to a determination by the Auditor that it had not been reasonable to instruct foreign solicitors in the action. The pursuer challenged this determination on the ground that the Auditor had erred in law.

The case was heard by Lord Menzies in the Outer House of the Court of Session, with Smith QC appearing for the pursuer and Middleton QC for the defenders.

Unreasonably high

The action arose from an injury sustained by the pursuer after she was knocked down by a motorist while on holiday in France in 2015. She instructed English solicitors Irwin Mitchell of Birmingham to conduct the litigation, using a Scottish firm, Blacklocks, to attend to procedural matters. The action was settled in March 2020 and the defenders found liable for the pursuer’s expenses the following October.

The account lodged by Blacklocks with the Auditor comprised their fee of around £8,670 plus outlays of £250,177.35 relating to Irwin Mitchell’s account prepared on the English equivalent of the Scottish “agent and client” basis. A preliminary point of objection was lodged by the defenders to determine that this portion of the account be disallowed as it was not reasonable in the proper conduct of the litigation for the pursuer to have instructed the English firm.

It was submitted for the pursuer that the Auditor had not considered whether the charges were reasonable and that he had proceeded on the assumption that English solicitors’ fees would be unreasonably high. This amounted to an unreasonable exercise of his discretion. The pursuer was entitled to choose her solicitor, the Auditor then was able to tax off or abate individual items if he considered the charge to be too high.

For the defenders it was submitted that what the Auditor had decided was not a general principle but that in the present case none of Irwin Mitchell’s fees had been reasonably incurred. In the present case he had decided that the English solicitor was not properly employed in the Scottish litigation, and he had not been required to look at the individual charges for that reason.

Nothing to gain

In his decision, Lord Menzies observed: “I can find no error in law in the Auditor’s report. In the exercise of his wide discretion, he took the view on the preliminary point of objection that the charges of English solicitors did not meet the test in rule of court 42.10(1), which was the relevant test for the purposes of this action. The rule provides that ‘only such expenses as are reasonable for conducting the cause in a proper manner shall be allowed’.”

He continued: “As the Auditor noted, the pursuer had permanent residence in Scotland, the accident was in France, and a Scottish firm of solicitors was initially instructed. The action was raised, and remained, in the Court of Session. It is not immediately apparent that it was reasonable for conducting the cause in a proper manner that the pursuer should instruct English solicitors. Of course she was entitled to do so, but it does not follow that the expense of doing so should fall on the defenders.”

Lord Menzies noted that there was no general principle against instructing English solicitors, explaining: “[The Auditor] was not persuaded that there was anything gained in respect of the specialism of the English agents that was not readily available with a number of Scottish based agents. For these reasons, he was not satisfied that the instruction of English agents was reasonable for conducting the cause in a proper manner.”

He concluded: “As the defenders submitted, if the charges by English agents, which were set out as outlays in Blacklocks’ account of expenses, were allowed, this would have the effect that while the defenders have only been found liable to pay the pursuer’s expenses on a party and party basis, the pursuer would be able to recover from the defenders the charges of English solicitors effectively on an agent and client basis. In all these circumstances I do not consider that the Auditor’s decision can be categorised as unreasonable.”

Lord Menzies therefore refused the pursuer’s application for the objection to be sustained.

Crown Office fails to apologise to young woman who was wrongly arrested due to staff incompetence

Miah Duffy, 22, was arrested because she failed to appear as a witness at a trial in June. She had, however, emailed the Crown Office beforehand to inform them of a pre-booked holiday to Ibiza, The Press and Journal reports.

Ms Duffy received a response thanking her but the message was never sent to court staff and an arrest warrant was granted. She was falsely accused of contempt of court.

She said: “To be falsely arrested and spend the night in custody is degrading and embarrassing.”

Sheriff Janys Scott QC expressed outrage and ordered court staff to remove the woman’s handcuffs immediately. She said: “It appears that the Crown have not covered themselves in glory. Take off those handcuffs, please. I’m sorry you had to wear those.”

Last Friday, Ms Duffy awoke at 12.30am to find police officers at her door.

“When I saw police I honestly thought someone had died,” she said. “But then they said: ‘Do you know why we’re here? We’re here to arrest you’.

“I showed the police evidence of me having communications with the procurator fiscal and them confirming that they’d received my email, so they already knew I wasn’t going to be there.

“The officers contacted the duty sergeant back at the station and told them this, but they were told I still had to be arrested.

“I was put into the back of a police van but thankfully they said I didn’t need to wear handcuffs.”

After spending the night in a cell, Ms Duffy was taken to Aberdeen Sheriff Court.

While she received an apology from the sheriff, no one from the Crown Office has yet apologised to her. When asked by the newspaper for a comment, a spokeswoman would only say: “We note the comments of the sheriff.”

Lawyer of the Month: John Vassiliou

By Rosemary Gallagher

Mr Vassiliou, who specialises in immigration and nationality law, set up the Ukraine Advice Project UK along with a group of peers almost as soon as the conflict began.

He says: “Five friends and I set up the service to match Ukrainian people wanting UK immigration advice with specialist lawyers willing to provide free advice. We set it up on 28 February, quite early in the Ukraine conflict. I was travelling to Oxford to visit a friend for their house-warming party. On the way, I felt helpless reading online about all the upsetting things that were happening in the conflict, including people desperate to get out of Ukraine.

“People were asking questions about how to get to the UK, but there were no special immigration schemes set up at that point. There were a lot of people online saying that someone should do something, but nobody in the legal sector had actually taken any action. Knowledge on immigration is something I could offer. At the party there were lots of immigration lawyers and I was cajoling them into doing something.”

The idea they came up with when they met again the following day was to create a portal which people with questions about emigrating from Ukraine to the UK could contact. They moved rapidly and the Ukraine Advice Project website went live the following day.

“We set up a Gmail account so people could email in questions,” explains Mr Vassiliou. “By the time the site went live the situation in Ukraine had worsened over the weekend. There was increased interest in getting to the UK lawfully and safely. On the Tuesday morning we logged onto the inbox and there were hundreds of enquiries.”

With the number of enquiries far exceeding the group’s expectations, Mr Vassiliou says they started contacting other lawyers to get more people on board. “The response from the legal profession blew us all away. We had hundreds of immigration specialists from all sorts of disciplines, such as solicitors, barristers, advocates in Scotland, regulated immigration advisers, legal executives and retired judges all saying they want to help. It was amazing,” he says.

Mr Vassiliou adds: “Some of the things we were reading in the email enquiries were very harrowing. We were getting messages like ‘a bomb has landed on the building next door. I need to get out, help me’.”

The group decided to reach out to global law firm DLA Piper, which has a dedicated pro bono department and the infrastructure to handle the Ukraine Advice Bureau. It agreed to take on the administrative responsibility in conjunction with law firms Hogan Lovells and Evershed Sutherland, while the founding group of solicitors remained involved with the project’s management. The firms also up-skilled lawyers who were not immigration specialists to enable them to respond to standard queries, while passing anything more complex onto a specialist lawyer for bespoke advice.

The project is still receiving queries, but not on the same scale as in its early stages. To date, about 600 volunteer lawyers have worked on the project and it has responded to more than 4,000 requests for advice.

“I’m very proud and privileged at being able to work with such an amazing group of people that helped make this happen. Without everyone coming together, it never would have taken off,” says Mr Vassiliou.

But he might never have become a lawyer and be in a position to support Ukrainians had he stuck to his original plans. He initially went to the University of Glasgow to study accountancy because it seemed like solid career. He did a compulsory business law module and enjoyed its problem-solving aspects and the opportunity to help and advise people face-to-face. This led to him dropping his accountancy studies and taking up law.

Mr Vassiliou explains that he didn’t make a conscious decision to become an immigration and nationality lawyer, but it “just felt like the right fit”. “I’m from a mixed nationality family,” he says. “My mum is Scottish and my dad is Greek. I think that has given me a natural affinity with people who migrate.”

During his studies he spent a year at university in Brisbane where he completed a module in immigration and refugee law, and on his return to Glasgow he chose an immigration and asylum law course before specialising in those sectors.

While setting up the Ukraine Advice Project is one of his career highlights, it’s not the only one. He refers to acting for two elderly Iranians seeking to remain in the UK on human rights grounds in 2019 while he was with specialist immigration law firm McGill & Co.

Mr Vassiliou explains that the couple were parents to four British children and grandparents to 11 British grandchildren, all of whom lived locally in Edinburgh. The couple had been visiting the UK regularly since the 1970s and owned a flat in Edinburgh. In 2014 they applied for permission to stay in the UK. The Home Office and the courts repeatedly refused their case over a five year period.

“We had a final immigration tribunal appeal hearing date listed for early 2019,” he says.

“A month before the hearing, I was able to arrange a piece about the case in The Guardian. This article went viral and was covered by all major TV news channels and newspapers. We managed to gather over 125,000 signatures on a petition to prevent their deportation. By briefing their local MP and MSP I was able to get this case raised in Parliament and by the Scottish government, and also at the Council of Europe.

“It turned out that one of their grandchildren played rugby for Edinburgh. The rugby player’s involvement gave the case a further boost in the press. In the face of this public pressure the Home Office backed down and granted permission to the couple to remain in the UK with their families, sparing us a difficult court hearing.”

He adds that the case demanded round the clock attention for a few weeks until it was resolved, but it showed him the value of Twitter and media engagement and reinforced. the importance of seeking out alternatives to litigation. To mark the achievement, he was invited to a celebratory Persian dinner with the whole family round the table.

Another career highlight for Mr Vassiliou is being involved in a Supreme Court case while at McGill & Co, which he says is relatively unusual for a Scottish immigration practice. It involved a challenge on historical gender discrimination under British nationality law. Before 1983, British women who were born outside the UK were unable to pass their citizenship onto their children born outside the UK, whereas British males in the same situation could do so. “There were a large number of people affected by this gender discrimination who weren’t able to become British citizens. Our client was one of them. It took about five years of litigation and the Supreme Court case to get the law looked at.

The law has just recently been changed to reflect our success at the Supreme Court,” says Mr Vassiliou.

An additional highlight is representing a man in a Windrush-type case, but before the term ‘Windrush scandal’ was widely used. Mr Vassiliou represented a man who had lived in the UK since the 1960s, having been brought over by his mother from Pakistan. The man was in the UK lawfully but didn’t have a document to prove that. The Home Office wanted to return him to Pakistan. The outcome of the case was to stop the Home Office sending him back to Pakistan and obtain a document confirming his entitlement to reside in the UK.

Mr Vassiliou says his move to Shepherd and Wedderburn in March 2021 has given him a great opportunity to branch out into the area of business migration, having previously focused on personal migration cases. “With the double whammy of Brexit and Covid, businesses are really looking to immigration lawyers now, for example in terms of how to recruit or retain foreign national staff.”

The legal profession, including the immigration and human rights sector, is not without its challenges. He laments that certain people in power and branches of the media describe some in his sector as “activist” lawyers or “do-gooders”. “Lawyers representing their clients are just lawyers doing their professional duty. In an increasingly populist climate, the eagerness with which anti-lawyer rhetoric has been deployed is worrying,” he says.

A change he does welcome in the legal profession is the acceptance of remote and flexible working since the pandemic, a trend he believes is unlikely to be reversed.

Mr Vassiliou concludes: “What has been demonstrated over the past couple of years is that people can be as productive when they are given flexibility to work from home, as well as in the office. It’s important that people do still meet up in an office to collaborate, but it’s nice to have flexibility. It will be exciting to see how we as a profession adapt to give legal advice to clients in a more digital world.”

Addleshaw Goddard boosts senior team in Aberdeen

Jennifer Cham, who comes in as a managing associate, and new legal directors Gemma Hills and Emma Sinclair have all joined the office, strengthening the firm’s coverage in the city.

Addleshaw Goddard moved to its current Aberdeen office at Prime Four in 2019 and has enjoyed rapid growth in its north-east team since then, while the firm has registered five consecutive years of double-digit income growth since moving to Scotland in 2017.

The corporate and commercial team has enjoyed an exceptionally busy year, extending its client base and advising on local, national and international matters for organisations including Aberdeen City Council, BP International, Dana Petroleum, Trojan Energy, Waldorf Energy, and local charity VSA.

David McEwing, partner at Addleshaw Goddard and co-head of the firm’s energy & utilities’ team, said: “We are thrilled to welcome Jennifer, Gemma and Emma to the firm. All three are highly experienced lawyers with a great reputation in the city and they bring another dimension to our offering in Aberdeen. We are extending the team to meet existing client demand, as well as to support the increased business we are seeing and help us to deliver on our ambitions for the future.”

“Last year we committed ourselves to doubling our headcount in Aberdeen over the next two years and these appointments mean we are on track to do just that – with more new faces set to join this year.”

Ms Cham and Ms Hills will both be part of the firm’s corporate team, with a particular focus on transactions in the energy sector.

Ms Cham, who was previously with Ledingham Chalmers, has 15 years’ experience with a focus on transactional corporate matters, including M&A, management buyouts and investment deals. She regularly advised on all kinds of commercial agreements, from shareholders’ agreements to corporate restructuring.

Ms Hills, who joins Addleshaw Goddard from Brodies, has more than 13 years’ experience and is involved in all aspects of corporate work including acquisitions, disposals, joint ventures, re-organisations, investments and mergers. She has also had significant experience in private equity transactions and has tutored as part of the diploma in legal practice at the University of Aberdeen.

Ms Sinclair joins AG after working in-house in the energy sector for more than a decade, including seven years at Weatherford, one of the world’s largest oilfield services companies. She will work closely with partner Ross McKenzie, complementing the firm’s commercial offering in Aberdeen with a focus on commercial contracts and helping clients with their contract lifecycle management.

Mr McKenzie, who also specialises in data protection and technology law, advising FTSE 100 companies and multinational brands from the city, said: “Demand for our teams’ services continues to grow, supporting our clients on all aspects of their day-to-day commercial needs. Emma will be a great addition to the team, giving us even more bench strength and bringing valuable experience from the client-side from her time as an in-house adviser.

“Attracting three solicitors with such quality to the office is a real testament to the ambition we have and what has already been delivered in recent years. We work with some of the best businesses in the north-east, advising them on international operations from right here in the city, and we now have the capacity to do even more.”

Michael Upton: The Electronic Communications Code – more haste, less speed?

When Lord Millett was still in the Court of Appeal, he commented on the gap between law-makers’ abstract approach to law and the courts’ more practical concerns: “The difficulty arises from the common practice of the legislature of stating that something ‘shall’ be done (which means that it ‘must’ be done) without stating what are to be the consequences if it is not done.” (Gurney v Petch, Court of Appeal, 27 May 1994, unreported).

The legislature does not learn. Take for example art. 43 of EC Parliament & Council Directive 2018/1972. It applies where a telecoms operator asks “a competent authority” for compulsory rights to install apparatus on private land, requiring the authority to make “its decision within six months of the application, except in the case of expropriation”. In implement of the Directive, that is repeated by reg. 3 of the Electronic Communications & Wireless Telegraphy Regulations 2011; see also para. 97 of the Electronic Communication Code in Sched. 3A to the Communications Act 2003. In Britain the competent authority is the Upper Tribunal (for the South) or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

I would be interested if a reader knows of another kind of civil action which is subject to a rule that it must be determined by the court within a given period of time. But if the six-month rule for telecoms applications is special, it is none the worse for that: as Lord Denning observed, “If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere.” (Packer v Packer, [1953] 2 All ER l27). Nor can we always keep everyone happy … as telecoms cases are ushered into the priority queue, the feelings of litigants with other kinds of Tribunal cases and maybe their own senses of urgency are not my topic and can be left to the imagination. (As an inconsiderately young advocate, I used to appear for the Revenue on busy Motion Rolls, and with a breezy invocation of the ancient priority for Exchequer Causes, barge my way to first place at the bar – past colleagues who could be forgiven for having not forgotten.)

The problems with the six-month rule are not that it seems a rarity; they are both theoretical and practical.

One theoretical problem is Lord Millett’s point, that no one knows what is meant to happen if after six months and a day the application is still pending. Presumably the instance does not fall - that would be an open invitation to respondents to protract matters. Must instead the application be granted by default? No one seems to have been bold enough to take that plea, against which a respondent might invoke art. 6 of the E.C.H.R.

There is also the question of the rationale. Code applications can involve months or years of pre-litigation correspondence, and months or years to implement, post-litigation – so some may question how much is really gained by trying to go foot to the floor at the bit in the middle.

A third theoretical problem is: to what decision(s) does it apply? Only the merits, or also expenses? If there were an appeal, would the appellate court not also be an element of the competent authority? Must the Tribunal so expedite matters as to allow the appellate court its own fair share of those six months?

It seems tempting if disrespectful to conclude that the rule is so lacking in clarity as to be nothing but an injunction to all concerned to get a move on.

And it has been so understood and applied. Which leads to the practical problem. Trying to keep to the letter of the rule can effectively exclude managing a case by ‘salami slicing’ the issues: selecting a logically prior issue for decision first, while reserving others which are contingent on its outcome. Instead, the speed with which a case is supposed to be handled requires everything to be addressed simultaneously – not only at the hearing, but also as parties prepare.

That is regardless of the strength of any logic for, say, first deciding the principle of whether Code rights should be granted - then, if they should (and they usually should), asking parties to settle the terms of the lease, or else come back for an early hearing on the terms – and thirdly, since rent is a function of terms, then asking parties to settle the rent, and again if they cannot, to come back to ask the bench to do it for them. (For the renewal of rights on an existing site, as opposed to an application for a new site, para. 34 of the Code in fact positively requires a staged approach - so how to reconcile that with the six-month rule is another difficulty.)

Sometimes there may be a preference for getting a dispute over and done with, at one global hearing on everything – and some would say that best facilitates settlement. But does that warrant effectively a blanket exclusion of the option of taking a staged approach? It could be no worse at facilitating agreement on issues by the parties – quite possibly better.

Nor need a staged approach be bedevilled by interlocutory appeals – if an appeal to the Court of Session from a final order of Tribunal opens up all prior interlocutors for review. (Does it? Answers on a post-card, please. Appeals from final judgments of the Land Court seem to; see Telfer v Buccleuch Estates Ltd, [2013] CSIH 47).

Departure from the six-month rule is not the only way to limit the scope of disputes, or to lessen the Tribunal’s workload. Another might be a telecoms analogue of the compulsory pre-trial meeting in personal injuries cases. Then again, in England the Upper Tribunal can remit cases to the First-tier Tribunal; the Lands Tribunal for Scotland might envy that. Extra-judicially, bespoke mediation services for Code applications are getting some minor English headlines.

However, the tribunals either side the border can of course best judge for themselves how to avoid overload. If they were to consider that the six-month rule was more hindrance than help, then the way round it would be plain: it does not apply “in the case of expropriation”. For better or worse, we are too far from the heyday of private land-ownership for that to be a derogatory term - but applications for compulsory Code rights over private property are surely “expropriation”: see CTIL v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd, [2019] UKUT 107 (LC) at paras. 86-87; CTIL v Keast, [2019] UKUT 116 (LC) at para. 13. It is hard to see why either tribunal might not say so, if it wished.

Or our lawmakers could repeal the Directive, or amend it. Or at least explain what it means. Getting the power to do such things was in late years so acrimonious, that not using it seems – well, if not “lost labour”, a tiny bit anti-climactic?

Michael Upton FCIArb is an advocate and arbitrator

New law to ensure all new buildings have electric vehicle charge points

Published as part of a summary of responses to the consultation titled ‘Scottish Building Regulations: Proposed Changes to Energy Standards Including Ventilation, Overheating and Electric Vehicle Charging Provision consultation’, the policy proposals aim to support and encourage the growing uptake of electric vehicles by ensuring that all new homes, including flats, with a dedicated car parking space are built with an electric charge point, making charging easier, cheaper and more convenient for drivers.

The new building regulations will mean that new residential buildings with a parking space have at least one EV charge point with a minimum 7kW rating. For new non-residential buildings with more than 10 parking spaces, 1 in every 10 would be expected to provide an EV charge point socket with a minimum 7kW rating. There are also requirements for residential and non-residential buildings undergoing major renovation to provide charge points.

To update the Building (Scotland) Regulations 2004, the Scottish government will put forward secondary legislation for the consideration of the Parliament by the end of the year.

To launch the proposals, the minister for transport Jenny Gilruth joined East Lothian Council and Springfield Properties at Windygoul South in Tranent – to learn more about the work already underway to provide charge points as part of the new housing development.

Ms Gilruth said: “We know that it is important to make charging as easy as possible to help make the switch to EV. I’m pleased to confirm that we will introduce legislation to ensure all new buildings are EV enabled.

“This step will help future proof Scotland’s buildings as we transition to a net zero transport system. This supports our ambition of phasing out the need for new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030 as part of our response to the global climate emergency.

“We’ve already seen private developers delivering EV charge points as part of new builds in Scotland. They recognise that charge points are an attractive feature to have and offer convenience as part of a wider charging mix. These changes will provide a minimum standard that developers will need to consider going forward.

“We also know that many households will not have access to dedicated parking spaces and that’s why earlier this year we announced our £60m EV Infrastructure Fund, to ensure that all households across Scotland can be confident that EV charging will be local, accessible and that they too can switch to zero emission.”

Opinion: Access to international arbitration for resolving construction disputes

International arbitration is a well-recognised dispute resolution process for construction projects throughout the world. It offers numerous benefits to parties, including the ability for arbitral awards to be recognised and enforced in foreign courts. Access to international arbitration can, however, be fettered in circumstances where a contract includes pre-conditions before a dispute can be referred to the arbitral tribunal. Awareness of any such pre-conditions and ensuring that they can be and are satisfied is crucial for parties operating in foreign jurisdictions where local law remedies and local courts may be perceived as unattractive options for dispute resolution.

Examples of pre-conditions to international arbitration can be seen in several of the standard forms used for construction projects. One such example is NEC 4 Option W3 which requires that a dispute under or in connection with the contract is not referred to the tribunal unless it has first been referred to the Dispute Avoidance Board (“DAB”). Further, after the DAB makes a recommendation, a dissatisfied party may give notice to the other party setting out the matter the dissatisfied party disputes and that it intends to refer it to the tribunal.

Option W3 goes on to provide that a dispute is not referred to the tribunal unless this notice is given within four weeks of the DAB’s recommendation. Whilst NEC 4 does not go on to provide that a failure to give a notice timeously has the effect that the DAB’s recommendation becomes in some way final or conclusive and therefore its status is unclear, there is a risk of such a failure operating as a bar to the dissatisfied party seeking access to the tribunal. This could then mean that the dissatisfied party would have to resort to the local court to resolve the dispute.

A further example is FIDIC 2017 Red Book which also utilises a DAB where if either party is “dissatisfied” with the decision of the DAB then it may give a notice of dissatisfaction (“NOD”) within 28 days of its receipt. FIDIC 2017 Red Book goes further than NEC 4 Option W3 where it expressly provides that if no NOD is issued with the 28-day period, then the decision of the DAB becomes final and binding on both parties and the arbitral tribunal does not have the power to open up, review or revise a decision which is final and binding. A failure to comply with a decision of the DAB can then itself be referred to international arbitration.

The above are only two examples of the types of pre-conditions a party may encounter. It goes without saying that standard form contracts are often amended and parties can contract on entirely bespoke terms, so pre-conditions for access to international arbitration can take many forms. Parties should therefore take care when negotiating and entering into contracts to ensure that any such pre-conditions are understood and are capable of being satisfied in order to ensure that access to international arbitration is available.

Keith Kilburn and David Arnott are lawyers at Brodies.

Extra support for mental health at work

Face-to-face training opportunities, clear guidance on the legal duties of businesses, and specialist third-party contacts will be in one place for the first time – making it easier than ever for employers to access the means of creating a culture of support and wellbeing at work.

The initiative comes as research shows the pandemic has had a detrimental impact on the mental health of people up and down the country. As more people continue to return to the workplace, the Scottish government is encouraging employers to support the mental wellbeing of staff so that businesses can continue to recover from the pandemic.

Recent research shows poor mental health costs Scottish employers over £2 billion every year and that, for every £1 spent on mental health interventions, employers get back £5 in reduced sick days and increased productivity.

Mental wellbeing minister Kevin Stewart said: “Happier workforces create successful businesses – it’s a win-win for all involved. The pandemic has impacted the mental health of us all and employers need the tools to protect and support the mental health of their staff.

“This platform makes it easier than ever to achieve this, and I encourage companies across Scotland to get involved for the benefit of their staff and productivity.”

Chief executive of Public Health Scotland Angela Leitch said: “These last few years have been difficult for many people across Scotland and has had an impact on the mental health of many.

“Returning to our workplaces could also be a further challenge because of changes in personal circumstances. It is widely recognised that being amongst colleagues can be beneficial to our mental health and being back in the workplace can also be a more positive and productive experience.

“This toolkit will therefore be of considerable benefit to employers and to their staff as we move out of the restrictions we’ve lived with for two years.”

It comes as See Me – Scotland’s national programme to end mental health stigma and discrimination – has launched a complementary digital portal that gives employers access to a one-size-fits-all framework for workplaces. This will help companies make continuous improvements to directly tackle mental health stigma and discrimination.

Wendy Halliday, director of See Me, Scotland’s programme to end mental health stigma and discrimination, said: “Mental health stigma and discrimination in the workplace often comes from a lack of knowledge. People can find that genuine problems are either belittled, or not believed in the first place.

“We’re calling on organisations to be real leaders in creating positive change, making their workplaces the best they can be, by joining the See Me in Work programme.

“The new digital portal supports employers to take action to tackle mental health stigma and discrimination at work and create workplaces that are open in talking about mental health and where discriminatory behaviour is challenged.”

Rights watch

Philippines: Lawyer who survived slay attempt wins human rights award | Rappler

Filipino lawyer Angelo Karlo Guillen is set to receive a top human rights award for his relentless work in the face of threats and harassment, including an assassination attempt in 2021.

Aysel Tuğluk’s treatment by Turkish court ‘amounts to torture’, says lawyer | Medya News

The treatment Kurdish politician and human rights lawyer Aysel Tuğluk has received from Turkey’s courts since her arrest and later dementia diagnosis behind bars constitutes torture, a human rights lawyer has said.

Israel: Continued administrative detention of human rights lawyer Salah Hammouri | FIDH

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and other organisations are gravely concerned about the continued administrative detention and the harassment through judicial proceedings of French-Palestinian lawyer and human rights defender, Salah Hammouri.

Sentence of American lawyer held in UAE is overturned | The New York Times

An American lawyer imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates since mid-July is expected to be released after his sentence was overturned by an Emirati court, reversing a punishment that raised alarm that he was being targeted for political reasons.

Amnesty defiant despite Ukraine report outcry | France24

Rights group Amnesty International has remained defiant under its high-profile secretary general in the face of a growing outcry over a report critics alleged boosted Russia in its invasion of Ukraine.

End protest crackdown, UN, rights groups tell Sri Lanka president | Al Jazeera

The United Nations and several prominent international human rights organisations have condemned the repeated use of emergency regulations against peaceful protesters by the Sri Lanka government.

UK must curb influence of European human rights rules, says Braverman | The Guardian

Ministers should “take radical action” to counter the influence of European human rights rules to curb a burgeoning industry of highly paid equalities officers touting bogus grievances, Suella Braverman, the UK government’s chief law officer, has argued.

Palestinian lawyers strike sees Abbas abolish controversial decrees | The New Arab

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has formally abolished a series of controversial laws-by-decree issued in March, as well as amending penal, commercial, and judicial procedure laws.

Spanish lawyer names bishops and priests pushing conversion therapy | openDemocracy

A Spanish human rights lawyer has named 70 practitioners and promoters of so-called ‘conversion therapy’ in Spain, among them Catholic bishops and priests.

Sudan woman faces death by stoning for adultery in first case for a decade | The Guardian

A woman in Sudan has been sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, the first known case in the country for almost a decade.

Quote of the day

There are two kinds of fools: one says, “This is old, therefore it is good”; the other says, “This is new, therefore it is better.”

William Ralph Inge, ‘More Lay Thoughts of a Dean’ (1931)

And finally… penny wise pound foolish

Tungnath Chaturvedi, from the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, sued after he was charged an extra 20 rupees (around €0.24 or £0.21) for two tickets in 1999, the BBC reports.

After more than 100 hearings, a consumer court has ordered the railway company to pay 15,000 rupees (€183 or £155) in damages and refund the original 20 rupees with 12 per cent interest per year.

Following the ruling, Mr Chaturvedi said: “It’s not the money that matters. This was always about a fight for justice and a fight against corruption, so it was worth it.”

He added that the compensation did not adequately make up for the mental anguish caused by the case.