1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 
"I don't
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
understand how it's got that far"
But the FTA's Gavin Scott says he is sure Lord McEwan must have been mistaken. He would have had the Transport Tribunal decision in front of him and he [presumably] didn't know it was under English jurisdiction. They should have appealed to an English Court of Appeal — it was an English case in the first place."
A Glasgow-based solicitor says: "It's a valid court order on the face of it; [but] I don't understand how it's got that far."
A TC's spokesman insists the companies remain within Macartney's remit and are running on their original licences. He adds the Traffic Area Office is taking legal advice on whether the decision was made outside the Court of Session's jurisdiction — something Hayden refutes.
Euan Duthie of Edinburghbased Burness Solicitors, acting for both companies declines to comment.