The Supreme Court has handed down its judgement in the case of AXA Insurance v. Lord Advocate, in which insurance giants and bad losers AXA sought to strike down the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 on the basis that they didn’t much care for it.
Lords Hope and Reed are perhaps back in favour with the Scottish Government after finding that the Act of the Scottish Parliament (which compensates workers for negligent exposure to asbestos which has led to pleural plaques) was not a breach of AXA’s human rights – specifically their human right to hold onto their own money (Article 1 of Protocol 1). Neither were Acts of the Scottish Parliament subject to review on the grounds of irrationality or unreasonableness – which is probably just as well.
However, the Supreme Court did state that the Acts of the Scottish Parliament could be subject to judicial review, but only on the basis of the rule of law – a departure from which the courts would not recognise.
Absolvitor: Scots Law Online 
Exactly what AXA and their like deserve.
In my view this case is a good example of English judges in the UKSC having a positive effect on Scots law. Lord Reed’s comments on grounds of judicial review were insightful and compellingly argued, and his development of the law of standing to bring cases against public bodies was greatly needed and long overdue. Lord Hope led the court, yes, but Lord Reed went into more depth about the common law (as opposed to human rights and devolution) issues, and ultimately I think the case will be remembered among lawyers not as “the one where the greedy insurance company lost”, but as “the one that made it possible for little people to challenge the government”.
Great analysis, Tim!
Lord Hope and Lord Reid are both Scottish judges.