The Legal 500

AMPERSAND, ADVOCATES LIBRARY, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, EDINBURGH, EH1 1RF, SCOTLAND
Tel:
Work 0131 260 5674
Fax:
Fax 0131 225 3642
Email:
Web:
www.ampersandstable.com

Aidan O’neill QC

Tel:
Work 0131 226 5071
Email:
Ampersand ()

Position

Aidan O’Neill is qualified to appear as counsel in Scotland, as well as in the courts of England and Wales. He practises in both jurisdictions, and has a civil/commercial practice involving a significant element of advice and court appearances on issues of European Union law and domestic constitutional law, particularly as engaged in public law, human rights and employment and discrimination law. He has appeared as senior counsel before the European Court of Human Rights, Court of Justice of the European Union, the UK Supreme Court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the House of Lords. Notable EU fundamental rights cases include: McGeoch v Lord President of the Council [2013] UKSC, [2012] CSIH 67; 2011 SLT 633, OH (on EU law and prisoners’ voting rights); Scotch Whisky Association and others v Scottish Ministers [2013] CSOH nyr (on minimum alcohol pricing); Walton v Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44. Notable civil liberties cases include: Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR (Grand Chamber); Greens v United Kingdom [2010] ECtHR 60041/08 (fourth section, 23 November 2010); Cadder v Her Majesty’s Advocate [2010] 1 WLR 2601 [2010] UKSC 43; R (JF and Thompson) v Minister of Justice [2010] 2 WLR 992, UKSC. Notable constitutional law cases include: AXA General insurance v Lord Advocate [2011] UKSC 46; Somerville v Scottish Ministers 2008 SC (HL) 45; Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 1) [2005] UKHL 74; Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 2) [2004] UKHL 34; Millar v Dickson [2002]1 WLR 1615, JCPC; and Lord Advocate’s reference (No1 of 2000) re nuclear weapons 2001 JC 143, HCJ. Recent public law cases include R (Sandiford) v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2013] EWHC 168 (Adrnin) (whether the FCO had duties under the ECHR and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to provide funding for legal representation of British nationals facing death penalty abroad); Caim Energy plc v Greenpeace lntemational [2013] CSOH nyr (on rights of protest); NJ and EH v Lord Advocate and others [2013] CSOH 27 (on the convention rights of mothers to participate and be legally represented in court hearings for emergency child protection orders); McGeoch v Scottish Legal Aid Board [2013] CSOH 6 (duties of the legal aid board under to grant legal aid to allow vindication of an effective remedy in national court for claims relating to breach of substantive EU law rights); Khakh v Independent Safeguarding Authority [2012] UKUT 424 (AAC) (scope of the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal in appeals against decision of the Independent Safeguarding Authority not to remove an individual automatically placed on barred lists after conviction of a relevant offence); Biggins v Criminal lnjuries Compensation Authonly [2012] UKUT 286; Ferrie v CICA [2012] UKUT 287 (private international law and scope of the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal in judicial reviews decision of the Criminal injuries Compensation Authority); M v Scottish Legal Aid Board [2012] SL T 354, OH (on the interplay and distinction between ‘advice and assistance’ and ‘ABWOR – assistance by way of representation’); R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] 1 AC 633, UKSC and Eba v Advocate General for Scotland [2012] 1 AC 710, [2012] SC (UKSC) 1 (on tile susceptibility of decisions of tile Upper Tribunal to judicial review in Scotland and England and Wales); N v City of Edinburgh Council [2011] SC 513, IH (re the Additional Support Needs Tribunal for Scotland and the refusal by the local authority of a placing request made in respect of a severely autistic child); SK v Paterson [2010] SC 186 IH (on the Convention compatibility of the failure of the Scottish Ministers to make provision for legal aid before Children’s Hearing in respect of adult ‘relevant persons’); Global Santa Fe Drilling Co (North Sea) Ltd v Lord Advocate [2009] SC 575 IH, [2007] SLT 849 OH (on the competency of tile Sheriff making an award of expenses against the Crown in a Fatal Accident Inquiry). Significant cases in employment/discrimination law include: Ravat v Haliburton Manufacturing & Services Ltd [2012] UKSC 1, [2010] 1 RLP 1053 IH; University College Union v University of Stirling [2013] CSIH nyr; Cusick v Strathclyde Joint Police Board [2012] CSIH nyr; Russell and ors v Transocean plc (No 2) [2011] IRLR 24 IH; Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32, [2004] 4 All ER 303 and MacDonald v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 32, [2004] 1 all ER 339. He also practises at Matrix Chambers.

Career

Called 1987 (Scotland); called England and Wales Inner Temple 1996; Q.C. Scotland 1999; Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Office 1997-99; publications: ‘EU Law for UK Lawyers; the domestic impact of EU law within the UK’ (Hart 2nd ed 2011); ‘Judicial Review in Scotland: a practitioner’s guide’ (Butterworths 1999); ‘Decisions of the European Court of Justice and their Constitutional Implications’ (Butterworths 1994); contributing editor (Scotland) for Clayton & Tomlinson ‘Law of Human Rights’ (2nd ed 2009); contributor to a number of legal books and author of a number of articles in scholarly journals, particularly in the field of human rights and community/EU law.

Languages

French, Italian.

Education

University of Edinburgh (LLB (Hons) first class; Diploma in legal practice); University of Sydney (LLM (Hons) first class); European University Institute, Florence (LLM); University of Edinburgh (LLD (awarded on the basis of legal publications).

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Update on EU Sanctions against Russia

    On 6 December 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 entered into force. This regulation is the latest in a series of regulations regarding "sectoral sanctions" against Russia.
  • Slovakia: Checkmate? New law regulates protection of employees when blowing the whistle

    So far, in Slovakia there has not been in force any regulation specifically addressing whistleblowing situations in which employees report wrongdoings, such as the commission of a crime which they learnt about in connection with the performance of their employment, work or function. Certain partial aspects related to whistleblowing have been regulated by the country's data protection, criminal and labour laws. read more
  • Croatia: A look at the Strategic Investment Projects Act One Year after Implementation

    Croatia's sixth consecutive year of recession
  • AT: Transparency International – Release of 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index

    On 3 December 2014, Transparency International, the leading civil society organisation fighting corruption worldwide, released its 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The index draws on surveys covering the views of business people, provides expert assessments, and ranks 175 countries by the perceived levels of corruption in their public sectors. The scale ranges from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean). The CPI can be found under the following link .  read more...
  • Review of the Constitutional Court Decision on the Cancellation of Article 42/1 (C) of Law No. 556

    Introduction
  • Transfer and Granting of Rights under Turkish Petroleum Law: Freedom of Contract versus Regulatory R

    Especially after the drop in oil prices the companies that are in early stage of their investments have begun to get position aiming to turn into an advantageous investment and started to look to what extent the regulations allow them to transfer and grant their rights under Turkish Petroleum Law. This may be deemed also as an exit strategy for some from operational perspective as it parallels with the tendency around the world and has direct relation with oil prices. 
  • Contracting the Petroleum Operations under Turkish Petroleum Law: Scope and Limits of Liability on P

    As exception to liberty of contracting and unlike a number of other industries, Turkey's petroleum industry imposes certain obligations to petroleum right owners in contracting the conduct of the petroleum operations.  At the first glance this seems that it aims to strengthen the management of hazards by enhancing the safety however the liability imposed to petroleum right owners in case of contracting the operations still remains unclear in terms of limitation.
  • Liabilities of Primary Employer and Subcontractors in case of a Collusive Contract

    Growing economy and competitive environment in Turkey has been leading companies to seek more profitable ways to conduct their business. Therefore companies have chosen to engage in subcontracts for the purpose of reducing their costs. Yet, to serve such purpose, at some point companies have started utilizing subcontracts to limit employees' entitlements through collusive contracts. Labor Law numbered 4857 (the " Labor Law ") and Bylaw on Subcontractor dated September 27, 2008 (the " Bylaw ") regulate which services or works may be subcontracted and strictly prohibit collusive contracts. According to Article 2/7 of the Labor Law, a collusive subcontract is considered null and void. Such nullity of subcontract automatically results in primary employers being redefined as main and sole employers of employees assigned to subcontracted work. Consequently, primary employers are solely responsible for employees' rights arising from subcontracted works and technically, primary employers would not have the option to recourse to subcontractors in order to claim any compensation due to their sole responsibility.
  • Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority’s Investigative Powers

    Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority's Investigative Powers: Case Handlers vs. Personal Property
  • Potential Consequences of Acquisitions of Minority Shareholdings under Turkish Competition Law

    The acquisition of a minority shareholding may come under the Turkish Competition Authority's (" Authority ") scrutiny in two ways, mainly: 1) it may result in de facto or de jure sole or joint control, depending on the rights possessed by the minority shareholders and/or shareholding structures and past voting patterns; and 2) it may not result in control but in cross-shareholding structures amongst competitors in a concentrated market which may raise questions about coordinated effects. This article discusses the circumstances under which the abovementioned consequences may arise under Turkish competition law with references to the relevant legislation and the most noteworthy cases in this regard.