Christian has a broad civil practice involving mainstream reparation, commercial and employment cases. He is regularly instructed in professional negligence matters and has longstanding experience of those involving the legal and medical profession. He also has an established interest in employment matters and is one of a small number of junior counsel recognised in this area at the Scottish Bar. He has advised and represented UK plc’s, Local Government and major insurance companies in all of those areas.

Una Doherty has a varied civil practice which covers a range of reparation and commercial disputes. Her main areas of practice are in personal injury and clinical negligence claims. She is instructed both for pursuers and for defenders and acts for clients ranging from individual litigants to insurers and public bodies. She has extensive experience of high value personal injury claims including those involving catastrophic brain injuries. In the area of clinical negligence she has acted in multi-million pound cerebral palsy cases. Her commercial practice includes insurance law and reparation actions for property damage.

Una has over twenty years of experience in civil litigation. Prior to calling to the Bar in 1999, she practised as a litigation solicitor for ten years with a broad range of practice. For five years, she was a partner in the litigation department of a busy Edinburgh firm of solicitors.

Her extensive advocacy experience includes appearances in the Court of Session (Outer House and Inner House), in the Sheriff Court, and before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. As part of her Sheriff Court practice she has appeared at Fatal Accident Inquiries. She has also appeared before the Professional Conduct Committee of the Nursing and Midwifery Council where she has both presented and defended cases.

She has acted as an ad hoc Legal Assessor to the General Teaching Council of Scotland in disciplinary proceedings which determined complaints of professional incompetence and misconduct against teachers.

Alan Moffat, Clerk and Practice Manager of Ampersand commented on the new additions to the membership "I am pleased that we have been able to attract such quality additions to the stable. Ampersand offers excellence in Advocacy and the experience across our core areas of practice Christian and Una offer enhances that."

Ampersand is delighted to annouce that over £10,000 was raised at a charity lunch on 18th February 2012 in aid of the Charity Wellbeing of Women.

The lunch at The Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh, followed by a fashion show by John Lewis, was hosted by Ampersand and compèred by the BBC News Presenter Jane Hill.  Members of the stable took all tables at the event and invited guests to join them. The event was supported by many local companies who helped by providing their time to assist with arrangements and by donating prizes for the auction and raffle.

Liz Campbell, Director at Wellbeing said:

“Wellbeing of Women were honoured to have been chosen as the charity partner for the Ampersand Lunch on Saturday. It was a marvellous day and the guests were very generous. This lunch has generated much needed funds to be used to support medical research in Scotland to improve the health of women and their babies”.

Ampersand are delighted that the event successfully raised funds that will help the charity. Alan Moffat, Ampersand’s principal clerk, said:

“As a Stable, Ampersand are proud to support such a worthy cause. Without the generosity of our guests and members, we would not have raised such a great sum. It goes to show that when like minded people get together, we can do great things and assist in the wider community for the benefit of others.”

A selection of photographs of the event can be found on the Ampersand flickr page here.

In the light of Lawson v Serco [2006] UKHL 3, the UK Supreme Court considered whether an employment tribunal had jurisdiction in relation to individuals resident in Great Britain and employed by a British company, but who travelled to and from home to work overseas, in the (now) leading case on this issue: Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1.

The Court dismissed the employer’s appeal against the decision that an employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal complaint. It was held that the Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 94(1) (right not to be unfairly dismissed), 230(1) (definition of “employee”) did not contain any geographical limitation, although some limitation must be implied. Distinguishing Lawson, the question of law was whether s 94(1) applied to this particular employment. It was not for the courts to lay down a series of fixed rules where Parliament had decided not to do so. Their role was to give effect to what Parliament may reasonably be taken to have intended by identifying and applying the relevant principles The question of fact was whether the connection between the circumstances of the employment and Great Britain and with British employment law was sufficiently strong to enable it to be said that it was be appropriate for the employee to have a claim for unfair dismissal in Great Britain.

Aidan O’Neill QC acted for the successful Respondent. The full Judgment of the UK Supreme Court can be viewed here.

The Supreme Court has today issued its judgment in the case Aberdeen City Council v Stewart Milne Group Limited.

The Council had sold an area of land to Stewart Milne Group Limited for an initial price, which was then subject to a possible uplift (the “Profit Share”) in the circumstances set out in the missives of sale. Those circumstances were (i) the service of a notice “buying out” the Profit Share; (ii) the disposal of the land by Stewart Milne Group Limited entering into of a lease in respect of the land for more than 25 years; and (iii) the disposal of the land by sale by Stewart Milne Group Limited.

Stewart Milne Group Limited sold the land to a related company for a price which the Council contended did not reflect the open market value of the land. It was argued for Stewart Milne Group Limited that the “Profit Share” fell to be calculated by reference the “Gross Sale Proceeds” actually received by it (which would mean there was no “Profit Share” to be paid to the Council at all) whereas the Council submitted that, in the case of a sale otherwise than for the open market value, on a proper construction of the missives, the open market value was to be used in calculating the “Profit Share” rather than “Gross Sale Proceeds” actually received by Stewart Milne Group Limited.

The Supreme Court dismissed Stewart Milne Group Limited’s appeal from the Inner House of the Court of Session. The leading judgment, delivered by Lord Hope DPSC, provides useful guidance in relation to the role of “business common sense” as part of the process of contractual construction. A copy of the Supreme Court judgment (reported as Aberdeen City Council v Stewart Milne Group Limited [2011] UKSC 56) can be viewed here (opens as PDF).

Craig Sandison QC and David Thomson, both of Ampersand, appeared for the successful Respondent, Aberdeen City Council.