0370 270 6000

Clancy v Caird

16 May 2000
The issues

Court of Session Inner House Human Rights- Temporary Judges – Civil Disputes

The facts

The Claimant claimed under Article 6 of the European Convention in that everyone is “entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and partial tribunal”. His claim was heard by a temporary Judge. His appointment was terminable at will. The Claimant relied on Starrs v Procurator Fiscal in which the Inner House had held that a temporary Judge was not independent or impartial for the purpose of Article 6/1.

The decision

However, unlike Starrs which concerns a temporary Sheriff, there was no express power to remove a temporary Judge. His appointment was terminable in the same way as any other Crown Servant. A temporary Judge is unlike temporary Sheriffs who are appointed for longer periods and are not subject to removal during those periods. They undertook a relatively small part of the work of the Court of Session and of a limited range. Their use could not reasonably be regarded as giving rise to a perception of undue Crown influence over the Court.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up