Court of Session Act 1988
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
27B Requirement for permission
(1) No proceedings may be taken in respect of an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court unless the Court has granted permission for the application to proceed. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the Court may grant permission under subsection (1) for an application to proceed only if it is satisfied that— (a) the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application, and (b) the application has a real prospect of success. (3) Where the application relates to a relevant Upper Tribunal decision, the Court may grant permission under subsection (1) for the application to proceed only if it is satisfied that— (a) the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application, (b) the application has a real prospect of success, and (c) either— (i) the application would raise an important point of principle or practice, or (ii) there is some other compelling reason for allowing the application to proceed. (4) The Court may grant permission under subsection (1) for an application to proceed— (a) subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit, (b) only on such of the grounds specified in the application as the Court thinks fit. (5) The Court may decide whether or not to grant permission without an oral hearing having been held. (6) In this section, “a relevant Upper Tribunal decision” means— (a) a decision of the Upper Tribunal for Scotland in an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland under section 46 of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014, (b) a decision of the Upper Tribunal in an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
27B Requirement for permission
(1) No proceedings may be taken in respect of an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court unless the Court has granted permission for the application to proceed. (2) Subject to subsection (3), the Court may grant permission under subsection (1) for an application to proceed only if it is satisfied that— (a) the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application, and (b) the application has a real prospect of success. (3) Where the application relates to a relevant Upper Tribunal decision, the Court may grant permission under subsection (1) for the application to proceed only if it is satisfied that— (a) the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application, (b) the application has a real prospect of success, and (c) either— (i) the application would raise an important point of principle or practice, or (ii) there is some other compelling reason for allowing the application to proceed. (4) The Court may grant permission under subsection (1) for an application to proceed— (a) subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit, (b) only on such of the grounds specified in the application as the Court thinks fit. (5) The Court may decide whether or not to grant permission without an oral hearing having been held. (6) In this section, “a relevant Upper Tribunal decision” means— (a) a decision of the Upper Tribunal for Scotland in an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland under section 46 of the Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014, (b) a decision of the Upper Tribunal in an appeal from the First-tier Tribunal under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.