Senior Partner: Peter Watson
Partners: 7
Assistants: 6
Other fee-earners: 9

The Firm
Levy & McRae is one of Scotland’s leading law firms. The firm has a particularly strong reputation for litigation, media and personal injury.

Principal Areas of Work

Litigation: Extensive litigation practice including representing British Sky Broadcasting Limited in the enforcement of all copyright and licensing matters arising in Scotland.
Media: One of the largest media law practices in the country providing advice to an extensive range of clients in the print and broadcast media.
Dispute Resolution/Reputation Management: Prominent individuals from the world of business, TV, film, music and sport retain the services of Levy & McRae to ensure that reputations are protected from unwarranted intrusion and defamation.
Crime: Uniquely, the firm has an in-house investigation team of senior ex-police officers and by using the latest technology in software and data management, the firm has achieved great success in a number of high profile and complex cases.
Personal Injury: The firm deals with a high volume of reparation claims arising from workplace, road traffic, aircraft and shipping accidents. The firm has extensive experience dealing with complex, multi-million pound claims, often involving high profile media interest.
Inquiries: The firm appears regularly in Public and Fatal Accident Inquiries throughout Scotland representing the interests of families, police officers, prison officers and companies (most recently SEPA) to ensure its clients’ interests are fully protected or advanced at such Inquiries.
International: Levy & McRae are involved in litigation around the world including in France, Spain, Turkey, Italy and the United States. As part of Legal Netlink, the firm offers worldwide access to local counsel.

THE FIRM
This firm’s Glasgow-based criminal practice receives a significant number of instructions from the Scottish Police Federation and has extensive experience in handling SOCA prosecutions.

KEY INDIVIDUALS
Alasdair Gillies is the key contact.

THE FIRM
The team here enjoys one of the largest defamation practices in Scotland. It regularly acts for big-ticket clients such as Trinity Mirror, the Sunday Herald and ITV, as well as advising a number of publishers. In addition, it does reputation management work for celebrities and high-profile individuals, as well as for Glasgow City Council and South Lanarkshire Council.

KEY INDIVIDUALS
Senior partner Peter Watson is “the name that people know in the market.” Angela McCracken has a well-respected media practice that includes advising on print, broadcast and online defamation issues, both pre and post-publication.

THE FIRM
The sensible and pragmatic lawyers in this firm’s litigation team are instructed in a number of high-profile cases, particularly in the media sector and in defamation matters. Other areas of activity for the team include corporate governance and restructuring issues and IP disputes. Clients are drawn from a range of industries and include construction companies, stockbrokers, investment banks, hedge funds, service businesses, football clubs and various television and newspaper clients. The team also advises a number of government organisations, law enforcement agencies and individuals. Recent work includes advising on international mediations, settling disputes to the value of over £1 million.

KEY INDIVIDUALS
Litigation head and senior partner of the firm, Peter Watson is a “very well-known figure in terms of insurance litigation – he’s been in the market a long time and attracts a lot of work with his excellent name.”

THE FIRM
This specialist Glasgow-based team continues to impress the Scottish market with its expertise in defamation, libel and day-to-day news operational matters, acting for print and broadcast media. In addition to reviewing scripts for Scottish TV, it also advises Newsquest, publisher of the Sunday Herald, and recently acted for the Daily Record in an action brought against it by AppA Therapy Beds.
Sources Say: “Polished, stable and dedicated.”

KEY INDIVIDUALS
Senior partner Peter Watson is praised for his contentious work.

THE FIRM
Levy & McRae continues to command great respect for its Scottish partnership work.

KEY INDIVIDUALS
William Macreath is an impressive name in the sector with noted technical expertise. “He is our first port of call if we are conflicted out,” say competitors.

Ranked in:
Scotland – Defamation/Reputation Management (Band 1)
Scotland – Dispute Resolution (Band 2)
Scotland – Media & Entertainment (Band 1)

Specialisation: Media; defamation; libel; aviation; international claims and litigation; personal injury litigation; public and fatal accident inquiries; civil and criminal litigation including cases which have been heard at the House of Lords and Privy Council; Legal Advisor to Rangers Football Club plc including successful appearances before UEFA disciplinary committee; Represented Shirley McKie and secured acquittal following the first successful challenge to finger print evidence in the world; Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise investigation; employment law; partnership law; Secretary of the Lockerbie Air Disaster Group; Secretary of Braer Disaster Group; Member of the Steering committee of the Piper Alpha Disaster Group; Member of the Stockline Disaster Group; Gecas v Scottish Television plc; Regina v Flight Lieutenant Williams; Cavendish v The Scotsman Publications & Others; representing the Dunblane Families at the Dunblane public inquiry; representing owner of care home prosecuted under Health & Safety & Work Act 1974- HMA v Balmer & Others; Solicitor of the Year 2008 - The Law Awards of Scotland; involved in litigation in more than 12 countries other than the UK.
Professional Memberships: Law Society of Scotland; SSC Society; sits as a Part Time Sheriff (Judge); APIL; ATLA; past President of the Society of Solicitor Advocates; past Chairman of the Scottish Mediation Bureau; Member of the IBA.
Career: BA in Economics, University of Strathclyde; Bachelor of Law, University of Edinburgh; research at Scandinavian Maritime Institute and thereafter at Dundee University, Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Law Studies; visiting scholar in International Law, Nova University, Florida, USA; on the board of Anglia Sports Law Research Centre.
Publications: Author of ‘In Pursuit of Pan Am’ and ‘The Search for Justice - A Case for Reform to the Civil Justice System in Britain’. Addressed the UN Summit on The Third UNECE/ REAG Land for Development Programme (LFDP) Forum, ‘Property Rights for the Poor: A Global Perspective’ in Rome on December 12th and 13th December 2004 delivering the speech on the ‘Rule of Law and Economic Prosperity’.
Personal: Golf, horse racing; travel; married with two daughters, Anna and Sophie.

Ranked in:
Scotland – Partnership (Band 2)

Specialisation: Partner in Litigation Department specialising in work for professionals particularly solicitors, doctors architects etc; partnership dispute resolution advice; LLP advice; large divorce practice.
Professional Memberships: Law Society of Scotland; Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court; Founding Director of the Director of the Legal Defence Union.
Career: Glasgow University; McLure Naismith Brodie 1974-76; Strathclyde Regional Council 1976-78; Paton and Co Partner 1978-90; Levy and McRae Partner 1990-date.
Publications: Articles in professional publications on professional ethics, complaints against solicitors and their handling, and articles on divorce and the valuation of business interests on divorce; on coping in private practice; articles on partnership. Regular speaker at professional seminars for medical and legal profession.
Personal: Married.
Interests: the arts, reading, cinema, golf, travel and politics. Former Member Greater Glasgow Health Board 1988-99; former Member Scottish Medical Services Committee 1994-97; former Council Member Royal Faculty of Procurators Glasgow 1998-2001; former Member Client Relations Supervisory Committee of the Law Society of Scotland. Director since 1985 of the Legal Defence Union.

Ranked in:
Scotland – Corporate/M&A (Band 3)
Scotland – Restructuring/Insolvency (Band 2)

Specialisation: Andrew is a well known practitioner in the SME corporate sector in Scotland. He has recently acted for the vendors of Border Rail in their sale to Powerlines of Austria and the vendors of Richardson Oils in their sale to Irish Food Processors. Andrew is also well known for his expertise in corporate insolvency and he has recently acted for the purchaser of Cullen Packaging from its administrators. Andrew continues to handle governance and policy issues for the SFA. The newly established Corporate and Commercial Unit at Levy & McRae also handles commercial contracts and has recently been involved in commercial agency;whisky distribution; and sports image agreements. The recession has seen an increase in shareholder and director disputes and Andrew is also prominent in this sector.

Ranked in:
Scotland – Defamation/Reputation Management (Band 2)

Specialisation: Angela McCracken is a Partner with Levy & McRae and specialises in media law providing 24/7 advice to all of the firm’s media clients both in broadcasting and print. She has been involved in many ground breaking media cases and acted for The Scottish Countryside Alliance in challenging the validity of the Scottish legislation banning fox hunting. She also has wide ranging expertise in civil litigation, including international litigation and acts for a number of high profile clients and organisations.
Career: She was educated at Westbourne School for Girls and then went on to study law at The University of Glasgow and has practised law with Levy & McRae since leaving University.
Personal: Her hobbies include tennis, keeping fit and reading.

Visit the Chambers website >>

Our firm has had continued success throughout the summer and autumn of 2009. In the High Court, the firm led the successful challenge to the Indictment of the owners of Rosepark Nursing Home following the tragic fire in January 2004. The Rosepark fire was one of the worst tragedies in Scotland in recent years and the firm led the successful strategy to challenge the competence of the Indictment against the owners, which had
been brought under Health & Safety legislation. Following the judge’s dismissal of the charges brought by the Crown, Peter Watson, confirmed that a “Fatal Accident Inquiry should have been established initially to let the bereaved families hear all the evidence. The Crown saw this tragedy in terms of a crime when many thought an investigation into the facts was more appropriate.”(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8061537.stm) A Fatal Accident Inquiry begins on the 16th November 2009.

Further success followed in the recent acquittal of staff from a leading specialist Educational Centre for troublesome young people following an allegation of assault by one of the children. The case was led before a jury and a ‘no case to answer’ submission was upheld. This was quickly followed by the successful acquittal of an off-duty police sergeant facing a serious charge of assault to serious injury and permanent disfigurement. Both he and his son had been stabbed and the officer acted in self defence to protect his family from further attack. A Glasgow jury took just 6 minutes to unanimously acquit the officer in what is widely believed to be quickest return of a verdict from a Scottish jury. (Find
more details at the attached link http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/133629-police-officer-cleared-of-assault/)

This augments the firm’s successful reputation in acting in complex, high profile and sensitive cases.

A lesbian police officer accused her former bosses of homophobia yesterday after being banned from working on the same shift as her girlfriend.

Sergeant Jasmine Stewart is suing British Transport Police for sexual discrimination, claiming she was picked on by colleagues who called her a ‘poof’.

The 39-year-old mother of two, who has since been sacked from her job, told an employment tribunal yesterday that the force was riddled with homophobia.

She broke down in tears as she described how officers would joke about her and her partner Mhairi Gilchrist, 29, who was already in a relationship with Miss Stewart when she joined the force as a student officer in 2005.

Miss Stewart, who joined British Transport Police in the same year after serving nine-and-a-half years at Sussex Police, made a request in January 2006 for Miss Gilchrist to join her team at Ashford Police Station where she was a training officer.

But she said Inspector Terry Reene refused to let her partner join the same shift, telling her: “People here wouldn’t like it, you two being a couple.”

She told the tribunal in Ashford: ‘I felt the way it was said was because Mhairi and I were gay.’

Miss Stewart who lives in Ashford, Kent said the force allowed heterosexual couples to work together, but she said bosses discriminated against her because she was gay.

She added: “I have worked with a number of officers in the British Transport Police who are partners, who are supervisory and subordinate and that works very well.

“They just happened to be heterosexual.”

When Miss Stewart threatened to lodge a grievance if her lover was not allowed onto the same shift her boss backed down, the hearing was told.

But other officers were hostile and made jokes about the pair’s sexuality.

Miss Stewart said: “There were comments made on a daily basis like, ‘I don’t know why you want to go to one of those meetings - it’s for the poofs’.”

Junior officers were also rude and refused to carry out her instructions, Miss Steward told the tribunal.

Describing the behaviour of one male PC, she said: “Every time I asked him to do something it was met with resistance. He would comply in the main if one of my male counterparts asked.

“My perception is that he had an issue with my sexuality and my sex.”

Whilst Inspector Reene is alleged to have complained that her arrival led to a drop in morale at the station.

Miss Stewart said: “In light of everything else that had been said I believed it was because of my sexual orientation.”

But Benjamin Uduje, representing the force, denied there was a culture of homophobia, saying officers accepted Miss Stewart’s sexuality.

He said that senior officers were reluctant to let Miss Stewart work on the same shift as her girlfriend as they felt it was inappropriate for a couple to be working together so closely.

He told the hearing: “[That was] not the action of a force that was institutionally homophobic or had a culture of homophobia.”

Mr Uduje also pointed out that the force was sympathetic to her childcare demands.

Miss Stewart was formerly dismissed from the force in April 2009 on the grounds of non-attendance. Her partner has also since been sacked, the tribunal heard.

Daily Mail, 28th October 2009

The Court of Appeal yesterday handed down judgment in Autoclenz v Belcher, which primarily concerned the vexed question of employee/worker status. On this issue, the case is authority for the proposition that:

1. The practice of requiring car valeters to notify the company if they were not going to turn up for work was capable of being characterised as ‘wholly inconsistent’ with an express written term that there was no obligation for them to perform any work, such that the written term did not reflect the true agreement between the parties
2. It was not necessary to find that the express written terms were a Snook sham (both parties intending to mislead others), as Rimer LJ had stated in Consistent Group v Kalwak [2007] IRLR 560; and Rimer LJ’s reasoning was “not strictly necessary to the decision”; [para 48]
3. The Tribunal was “entitled to infer from the evidence recited that the substitution clause did not genuinely reflect the rights and obligations of the valeters”, on the basis no real substitution had actually taken place [para 61] (with some hesitation – per Smith and Aikens LJJ).

As to perversity challenges to the decision of the Employment Tribunal, the case is authority for the proposition that:

4. Although, as a general rule, it is not possible to mount a perversity challenge unless the court is provided with the evidence which was before the fact finder (usually agreed notes of the relevant evidence or the EJ’s notes), it may be possible to mount a perversity challenge simply on the basis of the evidence recited and facts found in the judgment itself. [para 41]

www.danielbarnett.co.uk, 14th October 2009

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled last week on a question referred by a Belgian court regarding Council Directive 96/34/EC on the framework agreement on parental leave.

The Turnhout arbeidsrechtbank (Labour Court) raised the question as it was hearing a case brought by Christel Meerts after she was dismissed by Proost NV with payment of compensation for dismissal equal to 10 months’ salary, calculated on the basis of the salary she was receiving at the time.

Her complaint was that the company reduced this payment by half because of the equivalent reduction in her working hours as a result of her taking parental leave.

The ECJ said that the framework agreement must be interpreted as articulating “a particularly important principle of Community social law which cannot be interpreted restrictively”.

In particular, it went on, the concept of “rights acquired or in the process of being acquired” in the agreement must cover all the rights and benefits, whether in cash or in kind, derived directly or indirectly from the employment relationship.

Furthermore, national legislation which would result in the rights flowing from the employment relationship being reduced in the event of parental leave could discourage workers from taking such leave and could encourage employers to dismiss workers who are on parental leave rather than other workers.

The Court therefore concluded that the framework agreement on parental leave required that the compensation to be paid to a worker in such circumstances must not be determined on the basis of the reduced salary being received when the dismissal took place.

Although Case C-116/08 originated with a Belgian court, the ECJ ruling is of course applicable throughout the Union.

Croner News, 26/10/2009

A printing company has been ordered to make a large pay-out to its workforce after it failed to warn them that the company had gone out of business.

Spireax Binding only told staff three days before that their jobs were lost, despite knowing weeks in advance.

The Perth-based firm, which had won a contract to produce the Pirelli glamour calendar, said it feared workers would have sabotaged production if they knew.

An employment tribunal has ordered the firm to pay 90 days’ pay to 35 staff.

Despite winning the £100,000 contract to print the exclusive calendar, which has featured models including Kate Moss, the Dundee hearing was told that Spireax had lost two other lucrative contracts to produce diaries and stationery.

As a result plans were made by the company, first started in 1943, to cease trading.

However, the 35-strong workforce was kept in the dark about the impending closure, apart from one staff member.

The firm’s managing director Alison Milne said she was concerned that “disgruntled employees” would sabotage production if they knew that they were to lose their jobs.

She said she was worried that months could be put in the wrong order or missed out altogether from the calendar.

On 9 December last year, after the final batch of the calendars was despatched from the factory, workers were told the company would cease trading in three days.

The employment tribunal found that bosses had “flagrantly breached” their obligations in failing to consult workers about the redundancies.

It also found that there was “no evidence” employees would have disrupted work on the calendar.

The company has been told to make a “protective award” of 90 days’ pay to those who lost their jobs.

It was agreed that in addition to statutory redundancy and notice pay, every worker would receive an enhanced payment equal to two weeks pay.

The judgement was made after the firm’s managing director claimed to be “completely unaware” that workers had rights in respect of consultation.

In a written judgement, the panel, led by employment judge Ian McFatridge, said: “Parliament has imposed a duty on employers in the situation that this company found themselves to consult with representatives of the workforce.

“The company flagrantly breached that obligation and appeared to have some conceptual difficulty in placing this obligation at the same level as their obligation to trade creditors.”

BBC News, 19 October 2009

A Sikh police officer who was told to remove his turban during riot training has won his discrimination case against Greater Manchester Police.

An employment tribunal ruled Gurmeal Singh, 31, will receive compensation after being subject to “indirect discrimination” and harassment.

In a long-running dispute with the force, a sergeant said: “Can you take that thing off?” the tribunal heard.

Judge Murray Creed said this was a “violation” of his “dignity”.

PC Singh, who is based at Wythenshawe Police Station, had already told his superiors that he would not remove the turban on religious grounds, but was ordered to do the riot training course while off work with stress.

He told the tribunal sitting in Manchester he feared he would be made to look like a comic character from Only Fools And Horses.

In one episode of the TV sitcom Del Boy Trotter tried to sell 200 “crash turbans” for motorbike-riding Sikhs – which were helmets with cloth wrapped around them.

Out of the officer’s 15 grievances, two were ruled in his favour: Harassment from a superior and “indirect discrimination” because the rules around the riot training lacked “clarity”.

Speaking outside the employment tribunal, PC Singh said the judgment was “a weight off my shoulders” and said the grievance process had been a “very long road”.

His solicitor, Jag Brar, said: “Mr Singh is over the moon and very relieved and will now put this behind him and move forward.

“He joined the police because of his values as a Sikh. What is important now is what Greater Manchester Police will do to help him come back.

“It is a clear indication that this discrimination will not be tolerated.

“It leaves him in difficulty in relation to his future career but will hopefully open the eyes of Greater Manchester Police.”

When asked whether he wanted to continue working for the police force, Mr Singh shook his head.

PC Singh, who joined the force in 2003, said the meeting with his sergeant had been heated and he felt “humiliated” by being told to remove his turban.

After hearing the evidence, Judge Creed agreed, saying: “This tribunal is satisfied that the meeting was not calm.

“There was a degree of hyped emotion. He [the sergeant] was aggressive and challenging in his manner.”

PC Singh is currently on sick leave from the force, and has suffered from panic attacks and high blood pressure.

Judge Creed said that the tribunal had taken into account his health issues which have been “compounded” by the stress of suing the force.

Assistant Chief Officer at GMP, Julia Rogers said: “We felt we acted in the officer’s best interests, but accept the findings from this tribunal and have already updated the policies this relates to.

“We welcome the introduction of the newly formed British Police Sikh Association and will be looking to work closely with them via ACPO, in an effort to resolve any ongoing issues.”

The sum of compensation will be agreed on Friday.

BBC News, 1 October 2009

An employment tribunal has ruled that a police community support officer was not discriminated against on the grounds of his race.

Asad Saeed, 35, alleged that he was subjected to racist behaviour at London’s Belgravia police station.

The Metropolitan Police officer claimed that an “apartheid” culture of separate vans for black and white officers existed at Belgravia police station.

The tribunal ruled unanimously in favour of the Met.

BBC News, 7 October 2009