Tag: Court of Session

Scottish government guilty of contempt over Salmond files

Court rules that failure to comply with FOI decision timescale was contempt of court

The Court of Session has issued a ruling which finds that the Scottish Ministers’ failure to comply with the compliance timescale set out in a December FOI Decision amounted to a contempt of court. 

The Decision – Decision 281/2025 – concerned a request for communications and information relating to the James Hamilton Report and published legal advice.

In the Decision, the Commissioner found that the Scottish Government had not been entitled to withhold some of the requested information, and required disclosure. Compliance with the Decision was required by 15 January 2026. 

Following a failure to comply, the Commissioner issued a warning letter on 16 January, requiring that the Scottish Government comply by 22 January or the matter would be referred to the Court of Session. When this deadline was not complied with, the Commissioner referred the matter to the Court. 

David Hamilton, Scottish Information Commissioner.

Commenting on the case, Scottish Information Commissioner David Hamilton said: “I welcome today’s ruling from the Court of Session that the Scottish Ministers’ failure to comply with the timescales set out in my FOI decision amounted to a contempt of court.

“This was the first time in more than 20 years of FOI that a Commissioner has had to refer non-compliance  with one of their decisions to the court. It was not a step taken lightly, and was all the more disappointing given that Scottish Ministers have a role in making the law and an assumed respect for the rule of law.

“Failing to comply with my decisions undermines the fundamental principles of FOI and damages the information rights of individuals. I trust that the Scottish Ministers will now  reflect carefully on this ruling and review their broader legal approach to certain aspects of FOI compliance – and particularly those relating to the Hamilton Inquiry.

“If Scotland’s FOI rights are to remain robust, effective and valued, the timescales for both the provision of information and compliance with my rulings must be respected by every public authority.

“People make FOI requests when the information they seek is important to them, and any inappropriate delay is a direct denial of their rights. We must work to ensure that this does not happen again.” 

Usdaw court victory blocks Tesco ‘fire and rehire’ tactic

Court of Session rules in favour of workers affected

Retail trade union Usdaw yesterday won an interdict in the Court of Session in Edinburgh against Tesco forcing some of the staff at the Livingston distribution centre onto a new contract, which would result in the affected staff losing between £4,000 and £19,000 per year.

The judgement, which applies to the Livingston site only, means that Tesco are legally prohibited from unilaterally withdrawing entitlement to retained pay and/or terminating the contract in order to re-engage the worker on new terms which do not include retained pay.

The ‘fire and rehire’ proposal also affects workers in Litchfield, Daventry clothing and Avonmouth Tesco distribution centres and we will continue to fight for same result for our members at these sites.

Joanne McGuinness, Usdaw National Officer, says: “We are very pleased to have secured this victory for our members who faced a huge cut in wages after Tesco moved to renege on a longstanding collective agreement made in good faith. It is a major victory in the fight against ‘fire and rehire’ tactics, which are now being used by too many businesses.

“The court delivered a temporary prohibition and we are now calling on the company to honour the judgment and withdraw its plans at all sites. We stand ready to seek a permanent interdict for Livingston and a High Court injunction for the other sites to defend this unfair pay cut for hundreds of key workers.

“Tesco can stop this now, by doing the right thing and withdrawing their threat to these longstanding staff, who have worked throughout the pandemic to keep stores stocked with the essential items we all rely on.”

Salmond wins sexual harassment case

Scottish Government breached it’s own rules during Salmond investigation

Statement from Permanent Secretary at the Scottish Government Leslie Evans:

Lawyers for the Scottish Government and for Alex Salmond have this morning informed the Court of Session that his action has been settled and the Court has approved that settlement. 

As part of the settlement, I have accepted that the decision reached after the investigation of two complaints made against Mr Salmond should be set aside.  

This action is being taken because it has become clear that, in one respect only (albeit an important one), the investigation was procedurally flawed. 

However, it is important to stress that this relates to the operational application of the Procedure for Handling Complaints Involving Current or Former Ministers (‘the Procedure’). The Scottish Government considers the Procedure itself to be robust and it remains in place.

After reassessing all the materials available, I have concluded that an impression of partiality could have been created based on one specific point – contact between the Investigating Officer and the two complainants around the time of their complaints being made in January 2018. 

The full picture only became evident in December 2018 as a result of the work being undertaken to produce relevant documents in advance of the hearing.

I want to apologise to all involved for the failure in the proper application of this one particular part of the Procedure. There is nothing to suggest that the Investigating Officer did not conduct their duties in an impartial way.

Unfortunately, the interactions with the complainants in advance of the complaints being made meant that the process was flawed, however impartially and fairly the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation.

All the other grounds of Mr Salmond’s challenge have been dismissed.

The Scottish Government has acted in good faith at all times and will continue to do so. It was right and proper that these complaints were investigated and I stand by the decision to carry out that investigation. 

It is also important to note that the procedural flaw in the investigation does not have implications, one way or the other, for the substance of the complaints or the credibility of the complainers. The Judicial Review was never about the substance of the complaints, but about the process that took place to investigate those complaints.

It is accordingly open to the Scottish Government to re-investigate the complaints and, subject to the views of the complainants, it would be our intention to consider this – however, this will only be once ongoing police inquiries have concluded.  

Meantime I have commissioned an internal review of the specific application of this one element of the procedure. We shall learn and apply the lessons of this case to any future complaint addressed under our internal procedure.

My priority remains the duty of care to my staff, including anyone in the organisation who brings forward any concerns about inappropriate conduct, regardless of the identity or seniority of the individual complained about. 

Finally I would reiterate that the single procedural flaw which led to this decision is deeply regrettable. In particular, I regret the distress it will cause to the two women who raised the complaints.