BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Stephen, Re Judicial Review [2008] ScotCS CSOH_36 (22 February 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2008/CSOH_36.html
Cite as: [2008] ScotCS CSOH_36

[New search] [Help]


 

OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION

 

[2008] CSOH 36

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OPINION OF LORD UIST

 

in the Petition of

 

PROFESSOR THE MUCH HONOURED STEPHEN

PENDARIES KERR OF ARDGOWAN, BARON OF ARDGOWAN

 

for

 

Judicial review of a decision of the Lord Lyon King of Arms

 

 

 

 

 

ญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญญ________________

 

 

 

Petitioner: Agnew of Lochnaw QC, Miss Munro; Brodies LLP

Respondent: Woolman QC, Webster; Solicitor to the Advocate General

 

22 February 2008

 

Introduction

[1] The petitioner is Professor of International Law at the Antioch School of Law and resides at 3153 South Utica, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74105, USA. He is the heritable proprietor of the Land and Barony of Ardgowan in the County of Renfrew in terms of a Disposition in his favour by Sir Houston Mark Shaw Stewart Baronet dated 17 September 2001 and Land Certificate following thereon. The respondent is the Lord Lyon King of Arms ("Lyon"). By interlocutor dated 25 October 2004, in which the petitioner was designed as "Stephen Pendaries Kerr, Baron of Ardgowan", Lyon confirmed "that he is satisfied that the petitioner is infeft in the Lands and Barony of Ardgowan at 25 October 2004 and that the petitioner is entitled as Baron of Ardgowan to baronial additaments to his Ensigns Armorial, the form of such Ensigns Armorial to be determined by his Lordship at a later date." The purpose of that interlocutor was to confirm that Lyon accepted that the petitioner was infeft in the barony before the appointed day (28 November 2004) for the coming into force of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act").

[2] By petition dated 24 May 2004 in the name "The Much Honoured Stephen Kerr of Ardgowan, Baron of Ardgowan" the petitioner petitioned Lyon for rematriculation of his father's arms with baronial additaments in respect of his Barony of Ardgowan. He stated as follows in para 6(a) of that petition:

"That the petitioner has assumed the surname, title, designation and nomen dignitatis of 'KERR OF ARDGOWAN' in place of Kerr, and is now commonly called and known as 'STEPHEN KERR OF ARDGOWAN, Baron of Ardgowan' and desires that the foresaid change of name might be officially entered in the Books of the Court of the Lord Lyon."

As the interlocutor of 25 October 2004 designed the petitioner as "Stephen Pendaries Kerr, Baron of Ardgowan", a solicitor in Brodies WS, the petitioner's solicitors, wrote to Lyon on 19 January 2005 stating inter alia:

"Finally, both my client and his nephew, whom he has designated as the heir to his arms, have already changed their respective names to include the territorial designation 'of Ardgowan' after their surname of 'Kerr'. This situation seems to be on all fours with your 21 July 2003 additional decision in Lashbrooke v Lord Lyon ....... As Professor Kerr and his nephew have already changed their names in similar manner .... my client is hopeful that he and his nephew will be recognised in your warrant with the territorial designation 'of Ardgowan' after their surname."

By letter to the petitioner dated 21 January 2005 Lyon refused to recognise officially the petitioner in that surname. He stated:

"As regards the recognition of a territorial designation, I only recognise this where there is ownership of a significant piece of land, not a superiority. The fact that your client and his nephew have chosen to use a name which bears to include a territorial designation which has not been recognised does not bind Lyon to accept that name. I am not bound by the Lashbrooke decision, since Lyon is not and never has been bound by previous decisions of his nor (sic) of any of his predecessors."

[3] The petitioner now seeks reduction of the decision of Lyon dated 21 January 2005 and an order ordaining Lyon to recognise him officially in the surname "Kerr of Ardgowan" in the Warrant and Letters Patent to follow thereon matriculating in the name of the petitioner his said ensigns armorial with baronial additaments. The grounds upon which Lyon's decision is challenged are as follows:

(a)    In granting ensigns armorial and in recognising officially a Petitioner in a surname, whether or not that surname includes a territorial designation, Lyon is acting in his ministerial, and not judicial, capacity. His jurisdiction is to recognise officially surnames that have been adopted and he has no discretion to refuse to recognise officially a name and territorial designation that has been adopted. The purpose of his jurisdiction is to provide official recognition and to link the surname to the coat of arms that is to be granted or matriculated. In refusing to recognise the surname Kerr of Ardgowan, adopted by the petitioner, Lyon has acted unlawfully.

(b)   If Lyon has a discretion, he has acted unlawfully by failing to exercise such discretion in a manner compatible with the petitioner's rights under article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"). The petitioner's right to respect for his private and family life is engaged in relation to his adoption of a name and territorial designation. Lyon is a "public authority" for the purposes of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and is accordingly obliged to act in a manner compatible with the Convention rights. In refusing to recognise the surname adopted by the petitioner he has interfered with the petitioner's Convention rights. In failing to demonstrate that such interference was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society he has acted unlawfully.

(c)    Further and in any event, he has acted unreasonably in refusing to follow the practice of Lyons to recognise officially surnames including a territorial designation whether or not the Barony or other heritable property was a superiority title or a dominium plenum title. While Lyon might not be bound by his previous decisions or those of previous Lyons, he should have good reasons for departing from earlier decisions, which have been consistently followed. There was no such good reason. Lyon gave the petitioner no notice of any change of policy. The petitioner acquired the Barony of Ardgowan, in part, on the faith that he would be entitled to be officially recognised in the name Kerr of Ardgowan and had a legitimate expectation that he would be so recognised.

(d)   In any event Lyon erred in considering the petitioner's disposition to be that of solely a superiority. It contains two areas of land, the first conveyed being a superiority and the second conveyed, nominated as the principal messuage of the Barony, being conveyed in dominium plenum. If there is a distinction between the ownership of barony lands in superiority and in dominium plenum, the petitioner is entitled to official recognition in the name Kerr of Ardgowan because he owns the dominium directum of the principal messuage of the barony.

(e)    Lyon has given inadequate reasons for his decision. This is particularly so in circumstances where there is a long established practice that such territorial designations are recognised and Lyon has followed this practice himself. In these circumstances Lyon ought to have given adequate reasons for his departure from the established and lawful practice.

[4] In response Lyon contends:

(a)    The original jurisdiction of the Court of Session is excluded in all matters placed by statute under the original jurisdiction of Lyon (Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh 1911 SC 1054). Under the Act 1672 cap 47 Lyon is directed "to visite the whole Armes of Noblemen Barrons and Gentlemen and to matriculate the same in their Registers". The subject matter of the present petition is susceptible to appeal to the Inner House, rather than by way of judicial review.

(b)   The petitioner is entitled to call himself by whatever name he chooses. He has, however, no right to require Lyon to enter any particular name in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland. Under the Act 1673 Lyon may matriculate arms for those persons whom he in his sole discretion considers to be 'vertuous and well deserving' (Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, Courts and Competency, Vol 6, para 1017). It is also a matter for his discretion to determine the designation of any person to whom letters patent should be granted.

(c)    Lyon is not bound by his previous decisions. No individual can have a legitimate expectation as to (i) the grant of arms, or (ii) the names entered on the Public Register. In any event, reliance on only two decisions cannot give rise to a legitimate expectation.

(d)   The decision of Lyon dated 21 January 2005 is a reasonable one. In seeking the territorial designation sought the petitioner relies upon a territorial nexus in the form of a superiority. Before about 1980 superiorities were not used as a basis upon which persons adopted territorial designations. All superiorities have been abolished under section 2(2) of the 2000 Act. In the circumstances it was reasonable for Lyon to decide not to design the petitioner as 'of Ardgowan'. To docquet an entry in the Public register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland in the manner sought by the petitioner would give rise to a material risk of misrepresentation that there was a true territorial nexus between the petitioner and the subjects in question.

(e)    In exercising his prerogative powers Lyon is under no obligation to give reasons for his decisions in respect of the grant of arms. In any event, he did provide adequate information to the petitioner.

(f)     In the event that the court found in favour of the petitioner it should not make an order for specific implement against Lyon, but the matter should be remitted to Lyon to proceed in accordance with the court's decision.

The history of the Lyon Court

[5] In order to be able to understand the competing submissions for the parties it is necessary to know something of the history of the Lyon Court.

[6] A short description of the early history of the Lyon Court was given by Lord Johnston in Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh 1911 SC 1054 at pages 1061 - 2. His Lordship there said:

"The Lyon appears at first on Thomson's page (i e Acts of the Scottish Parliament) in the position of a Herald merely. But by the middle of the sixteenth century he had become responsible for the exercise of their duties by messengers-at-arms. In 1567, cap 80, provision is made for the re-formation of the office of arms, in terms evidently pointing to irregularities both in the appointment and in the actings of messengers-at-arms, and, to that end, for definition of the Lyon's duties thereanent. This led to the Act 1587, cap 30, which, as far as I can find, first establishes the Lyon Court. The act reduces the number of messengers, places, or at least recognises, their appointment as in the hands of the Lyon King, and directs him to hold two courts in the year to inquire into complaints against them for malversation of office. This Court is made a Court of record. There are several confirmatory Acts - e g, that of 1669, cap 95.

Then in 1592, cap 29, there is found what appears to be the origin of another branch of the Lyon King's functions and jurisdiction. He may have had some such powers by prior usage, but this is the first recognition thereof by Parliament, and it has all the appearance of a new departure. I need not deal on the matter in detail. It is sufficient to say that this Act originates the jurisdiction of the Lyon King in the matter of bearing arms. Duties of an inquisitorial nature are imposed upon him and his subordinates, and power to determine the right to bear arms and "to distinguish and decern them with congruent differences, and thereafter to matriculate them in their books and registers". This Act was also confirmed in later Acts, as, for instance, 1672, cap 47. The Lyon's jurisdiction in this matter was partly quasi-judicial and partly ministerial. But it seems to spring from statutory authority."

Competency and justiciability

(i) Submission for Lyon

[7] It was submitted on behalf of Lyon that this application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court was incompetent as an alternative remedy was available in the form of an appeal to the Inner House.

[8] Rule of Court 58.3 provides:

"(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court ... shall be made by petition for judicial review.

(2) An application may not be made under paragraph (1) if that application is made, or could be made, by appeal or review under or by virtue of any enactment."

The Lyon Court was an inferior court from which an appeal lay under Rule of Court 40.1 (2) (c) (i). This principle had been established since at least 1778. In the case of Procurator Fiscal of the Lyon Court v William Murray of Touchadam (1778) FC viii 36 No 22 the rubric reads:

"The Lyon court having fined a person for having assumed arms without matriculation, and decerned him to forfeit the furniture which bore such arms, the Lords found that the Court was competent in such actions, but that its jurisdiction was not privative. And on the merits of the case they found that, the defender having been in possession of a coat-armorial prior to statute 1592, such long possession assumed an antecedent right and that the Lyon could do no more than oblige him to matriculate and pay the usual fee."

[9] In the case of Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (supra), which was described by junior counsel for Lyon as "an undignified scrap between gentlemen as to their order of precedence", Lord President Dunedin stated at p1060:

"Now, your Lordships will have already noticed that this petition is presented as a petition to the Lyon King of Arms in his capacity as a judge in one of the inferior judicatories of Scotland. From that inferior judicatory an appeal lies to your Lordships' Court, and your Lordships have to determine upon the merits such things as come from that court by appeal. And I think it is a corollary of that that your Lordships would enforce any decree which was pronounced by the usual methods by which the court enforces its decrees."

[10] The case of Stewart Mackenzie v Fraser-Mackenzie 1922 SC (HL) 39 was an action at the instance of one not himself entitled to the arms challenged and involved a question of title to sue. At p 41 Lord Dunedin said:

"The present appeal is against an interlocutor of the Second Division affirming an interlocutor of the Lord Lyon of 21 October 1918, whereby he dismissed a petition at the instance of the appellant craving that a grant of ensigns armorial in favour of the respondent dated 7 February 1908 should be reduced or set aside, or at least should be altered by a disallowance of the supporters authorised thereby. It may be a matter for regret that the opinion of this House should be sought on such a question. There seems, however, no doubt as to the competency of the appeal. The Court of the Lord Lyon is an inferior Court, and from inferior Courts there lies an appeal to the Court of Session, and final interlocutors of the Court of Session in civil matters are appealable to your Lordships' House."

At p 45 his Lordship said:

"It is, I think, conclusively settled by the case of McDonnell v McDonald (1826) 4S 371 that the Court of Session will never interfere by way of reduction (and it follows that recall, which is tantamount to reduction, must share the same fate) with a coat of arms granted by the Lyon in his ministerial capacity unless the complainer can aver and show that he is entitled to the coat of arms of which he complains."

At pages 45-46 Lord Shaw of Dunfermline stated:

"Courts of law in their due order as appellate Courts from an undoubted Court of law, that of the Lyon King of Arms in Scotland, are not relieved of the task of determining cases of this character in those instances in which a heraldic right vested in one subject of the Crown has been seized or invaded by another subject of the Crown."

He went on to say later at p 46:

"I am, however, of opinion that the law with regard to any interference with the administration of the Lord Lyon, or with the exercise by him of his ministerial powers in regard to the grant of arms, remains in the same position as that set forth by Lord Robertson in the case of McDonnell v McDonald, a decision pronounced in the year 1826. In my opinion, no appeal to the ordinary Courts of law against such a grant is competent unless upon the ground which I have stated, namely, an invasion of a right vested in the appellant."

[11] In the earlier case of McDonnell v McDonald (1826) 4S 371 the Court of Session dismissed as incompetent an action of reduction of matriculation of arms as the pursuer had not set forth that he had right to the arms in question. Lord Robertson stated at p 272:

"The power of granting ensigns armorial is part of the royal prerogative, but everything belonging to that power has been given by sundry statutes to the Lord Lyon. His power to grant new armorial bearings is merely discretionary and ministerial, and with that this Court cannot interfere. But if the Lord Lyon should grant to one person arms which another is entitled to bear, and should refuse to give redress, there could be no doubt of the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an action at the instance of the party to have his right declared, as this would involve a question of property, which a right to bear particular ensigns armorial undoubtedly is."

It was plain that in the above passage Lord Robertson recognised the distinction between an original grant of arms and subsequent issues relating to those arms. Before arms were granted a petitioner had no right. The power to grant new armorial bearings was discretionary. A successful applicant for ensigns armorial received a warrant for letters patent and thereafter had a right to the arms. The present petition related to existing armorial bearings. The petitioner was seeking matriculation of new of arms granted to his father. He had brought a petition before the Lyon Court which had resulted in Lyon pronouncing an interlocutor dated 25 October 2004. The matter in this case had been brought before Lyon in his judicial capacity and Lyon's decision ought to be the subject of an appeal to the Inner House, not an application for judicial review in the Outer House. An appeal to the Inner House would avoid one judge reviewing the decision of another judge.

[12] Even if the function of Lyon in the present case were administrative or ministerial, it did not follow as a matter of course that the exercise of his discretion was subject to judicial review. In CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 Lord Roskill, having stated that there was no logical reason why the fact that the source of the power was the prerogative and not statute should deprive the citizen of that right of challenge to the manner of its exercise which he would possess were the source of the power statutory, went on to state at p 418A-C:

"But I do not think that that right of challenge can be unqualified. It must, I think, depend upon the subject matter of the prerogative power which is exercised. Many examples were given during the argument of prerogative powers which as at present advised I do not think could be properly made the subject of judicial review. Prerogative powers such as those relating to the making of treaties, the defence of the realm, the prerogative of mercy, the grant of honours and the dissolution of Parliament and the appointment of ministers as well as others are not, I think, susceptible to judicial review because their nature and subject matter are such as not to be amenable to the judicial process. The courts are not the place wherein to determine whether a treaty should be concluded or the armed forces disposed of in a particular manner or Parliament dissolved on one date rather than another."

Emphasis was laid on the mention of "the grant of honours".

[13] The distinction which the petitioner sought to draw was an artificial one. The fact that he had a bad appeal point did not provide him with a ground for judicial review. The vessel in which the petition had sailed had run aground.

(ii) Submission for the petitioner

[14] The submission for the petitioner in response was that the issue was not whether Lyon was obliged to grant arms in a particular style of the petitioner's choosing, but related to his jurisdiction in respect of names and changes of names, which was a discrete function. The 1867 Act (30 and 31 Vict, c 17), Schedule B specified the fees chargeable by Lyon for a certificate regarding a change of name. Lyon's function in relation to names or changes of names was an administrative or ministerial, not judicial, function. Lyon had refused to grant official recognition to the petitioner's name incorporating his territorial designation. The petitioner was seeking to ensure that the name on his ensigns armorial matched the name by which he was ordinarily known. In officially recognising a change of name Lyon acted in an administrative or ministerial capacity. The Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, vol 6. p 482, para 1017 stated:

"The jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon is both ministerial and judicial. Lyon will determine judicially if a person has proved his entitlement to a right, but he or a previous holder of the office may have determined the nature of the right or brought the right into being by exercising a part of the Royal prerogative of the Sovereign of the United Kingdom which has been assigned to him by sundry statutes. The courts will not interfere with the ministerial or administrative act of Lyon unless he acts ultra vires or grants or purports to grant to one a right which is already vested in another (Stewart Mackenzie v Fraser-Mackenzie 1922 SC (HL) 39.

The principal administrative function of the Lord Lyon is in relation to the granting of armorial bearings by letters patent to such persons as Lyon in his sole discretion considers to be 'virtuous and well deserving persons' (Lyon King of Arms Act 1672, c 47)."

[15] Green's Encyclopaedia Vol 10, p 147, para 308 stated:

"The Scottish substitute for the expensive Royal Licence is a certificate of 'Official recognition of change of name' granted by the Lord Lyon king of Arms in virtue of his ministerial powers, wherein he exercises (within his jurisdiction) the sovereign's prerogative."

[16] In Sturzenegger, Petitioner 2000 SLT (Lyon Ct) 2 the petitioner presented a petition to Lyon seeking to be officially recognised in the name and title of a territorial peerage. In his opinion Lyon described the petition as "addressed to Lyon in his administrative capacity".

[17] The grant of arms was a reserved, not devolved, matter (Scotland Act 1998, Schedule 5, paras 1 and 2(2)) as it involved ministerial, not judicial, functions.

[18] The distinction between Lyon's administrative and judicial functions was material to the scope of appeal to the Inner House and to the competency of the present petition for judicial review. A right of appeal to the Inner House was recognised only in respect of Lyon's judicial decisions: the Inner House declined to interfere on appeal with administrative or ministerial acts of Lyon. A disputed right or claim to existing arms would require Lyon to act in his judicial capacity as it would involve a lis inter partes, as would a complaint by the Procurator Fiscal of the Lyon Court about the unlawful use of arms. If Lyon was acting in his administrative or ministerial capacity in the present case there was no right of appeal to the Inner House (Kaye v Hunter 1958 SC 208) and the petition for judicial review which had been brought was competent. The function of Lyon in the present case was to marry up the link between the petitioner's old identity and his new identity. Since that function was administrative or ministerial there was no right of appeal to the Inner House and all that remained was judicial review. In 1826 there was no notion of scrutinising the royal prerogative. The question of competency was separate from that of justiciability, which dealt with what kind of decision was amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction. The prerogative roots of Lyon's jurisdiction were no bar to the competency of judicial review: what mattered was not the source of the power being exercised but the substance of that power.

[19] In summary, the following two propositions could be derived from the cases. First, it was clear that where a petition came before the Lyon court which engaged Lyon's judicial functions (because it involved a question of disputed rights or disputed claims) the decision which Lyon reached was a judicial decision. It was the judicial character of that decision which, in turn, rendered it susceptible to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Session exercised under Chapter 40 of the Rules of Court. Secondly, it was equally clear from the decision of the Second Division in McDonnell that a distinction fell to be drawn between Lyon's judicial decisions which were subject to appeal to the Court of Session and those taken in exercise of his ministerial or administrative functions, which were not. The same distinction was drawn in Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and also in Stewart Mackenzie v Fraser Mackenzie.

[20] Where a decision of Lyon was not subject to appeal to the Court of Session all that remained by way of remedy was an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, which existed "to redress all wrongs for which a peculiar remedy is not otherwise provided" (Erskine, Institutes, I iii 23; West v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385 at p 413). The supervisory jurisdiction did not extend to the merits of a challenged decision, which, if challengeable at all, were challengeable only by way of appeal. The decision in McDonnell appeared to disclaim any jurisdiction over the acts of Lyon in 1826. If a person were today to apply for judicial review of a decision of Lyon about the grant of new armorial bearings (perhaps the classic exercise of Lyon's ministerial or administrative power) on the ground that he was simply dissatisfied with it the Court of Session would quite properly decline to interfere because the challenge would be one directed at the merits of Lyon's decision. On the other hand, if the case were put on the basis that Lyon had acted in a biased or unfair or improper manner, the matter would then be plainly susceptible to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, which would be fully entitled to reduce the decision.

[21] There might well in the past have been reticence about the possibility of bringing the ministerial or administrative decisions of Lyon under judicial review, partly by reason of the foundation of his powers in the royal prerogative and partly perhaps by reason of a less expansive understanding of what constituted a wrong demanding a remedy. This raised a question of justiciability, not of competency. So far as the prerogative roots of Lyon's jurisdiction were concerned, they were plainly no bar to judicial review at the present day (CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 per Lord Scarman at p 407; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] 2 AC 513 per Lord Browne-Wilkinson at p 553). Thus, in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Everett [1989] QB 811 a successful application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to issue the applicant with a passport, Taylor LJ stated at p 820C-D:

"At the top of the scale of executive functions under the prerogative are matters of high policy ..... making treaties, making war, dissolving Parliament, mobilising the armed forces. Clearly those matters, and no doubt a number of others, are not justiciable. But the grant or refusal of a passport is in quite a different category. It is a matter of administrative decision, affecting the rights of individuals and their freedom to travel."

In the present case it was submitted that the giving or withholding of official recognition to an individual's choice of name was equally clearly at the justiciable end of the spectrum of prerogative decisions.

[22] In West (supra) at p314 the First Division held that

"..... the categories of what may amount to an excess or abuse of jurisdiction are not closed and they are capable of being adapted in accordance with the development of administrative law."

The petitioner was complaining inter alia of breach of his legitimate expectation and human rights. Neither would have been recognised as a wrong demanding a remedy in the early nineteenth century, but both, if established plainly constituted a wrong today.

[23] In the Lyon Court the same procedure involving petitions and interlocutors was used whether the function being exercised by Lyon was ministerial or judicial. In some cases everything was done simply by way of letters. Lyon would often issue an interlocutor to record a step in a process. The function which was being exercised by Lyon had to be considered so that it could be categorised. Here the application was for a change of name within letters patent or on a certificate of grant of arms. The petitioner had asked for rematriculation of his father's arms and official recognition of his change of name. The application was to Lyon in his ministerial capacity for recognition of a change of name which had already taken place. The important point missed in the submission for Lyon was that what was being dealt with here related to a change of name, not Coats of Arms, although it was accepted that there was an interlinking between the two.

(iii) Discussion and Conclusion

[24] It is clear from the authorities referred to that Lyon has both a judicial and a ministerial or administrative jurisdiction. The question which I have to answer in deciding whether this petition is competent or not is into which category his decision in this case falls. It is plain from the decision in the case of McDonnell that the power of Lyon to grant ensigns armorial is part of the royal prerogative and therefore ministerial or administrative in nature. It is also plain that the power of Lyon to grant an official certificate of change of name is exercisable under the royal prerogative under his ministerial or administrative powers (Green's Encyclopaedia, Vol 10, para 308). The present case does not involve a new grant of arms, but it does relate to the name of the holder of an existing grant of arms and may therefore reasonably be said to raise a question ancillary to a grant of arms. It also involves a change of name on the part of the petitioner. Put simply, it involves a question of the change of name of an existing holder of a grant of arms. As both the power to grant of arms and the power to recognise officially a person's change of name fall within Lyon's ministerial or administrative function, it seems to me to follow that the power to decide whether to accept a change of the name of the existing holder of a grant of arms must also logically fall within his ministerial or administrative function under the royal prerogative. Accordingly, I am of the view that this petition is competent and the challenge by Lyon to its competency must be rejected.

[25] Next, the question of justiciability has to be considered. Lyon's ministerial or administrative power is exercised under the royal prerogative, but it does not therefore follow that it cannot be the subject of judicial review. It is clear from the decision in the House of Lords that a power exercised under the royal prerogative can be the subject of judicial review, provided the decision in question does not fall within one of the excluded categories mentioned by Lord Roskill in the passage quoted above. In my opinion the decision in this case does not fall within any of the excluded categories. The only excluded category which was suggested on behalf of Lyon was the grant of honours, but in my view it is obvious that what Lord Roskill was referring to there was the conferring of an honour on a person as that is traditionally understood, namely, in the Honours List or by the Sovereign in person. He did not intend to include within the grant of honours the granting of ensigns armorial by the appropriate authority on the application of the party seeking the grant. The exercise of the prerogative in this case is my view analogous to that of granting a passport in the Everett case, being a purely administrative function involving dealing with an application. It is therefore subject to judicial review.

Discretion

(i) Submission for the petitioner

[26] The submission for the petitioner was that, so far as the jurisdiction of Lyon to refuse to recognise a name incorporating a territorial designation was concerned, he was not taking an absolutist position, as seemed to have been suggested on behalf of Lyon. A person claiming the designation "Baron of X" had to demonstrate to Lyon a proper foundation for his designation. Lyon could refuse to recognise a change of name for a non-armigerous person. Innes of Learney, Scots Herladry (2nd Ed, 1956) states at pages 199-200:

"The normal Scottish procedure in the case of the noblesse is, therefore, to obtain from the Lord Lyon a 'Certificate regarding Change of Name', in which his Lordship not only 'officially recognises' the name assumed, but issues a Certificate which forms the necessary identification of the individual under his old name and his new one. Such a statutory certificate is granted for 15s and expenses (about 2 guineas where the applicants or parents are recorded in the Register of Arms or Genealogies), and is also enrolled in the Books of the Lyon Court, whence additional Extracts can be obtained. Otherwise it is normally recorded in a special section of the Register of Genealogies, the total fee in that case being some 13 guineas. The Lord Lyon's Certificate, or an Extract thereof, is thereafter produced, along with the Extract of the original Birth Certificate, which cannot itself be altered, except in fundamental error.

As in the case of a Royal Licence, Lyon's certificate is not obtainable for capricious changes of name by non-armigerous persons. The grounds upon which Lyon's jurisdiction can properly be invoked are Changes of Name by (1) persons in right of arms, or members of their families entitled to a courtesy of these arms; (2) persons recorded in, or adding themselves to, pedigrees in the Public register of Genealogies; (3) persons succeeding to feudal property, or under settlements (the first category renders the matter one relating to tenures, and the latter presumes a formal act will be taken to effect compliance); (4) persons who require Lyon's certificate for naval, military or other reasons; (5) where a change of name has to be authorised by a government Department, as in entering certain professions (eg nursing), and in connection with insurance companies, and for certain foreign purposes (a University). If the ground of the application be (1) or (2) the ground will normally be set forth and appear from reference to the Register of Arms or Genealogies. In other cases the precise ground for invoking Lyon's jurisdiction should be set forth in the application.

Certificates granted by the Lord Lyon may refer to change of either Christian name or surname. The needful procedure is a petition ...."

[27] Lyon had a discretion to withhold recognition of a name which was obscene, offensive or racist. It was not suggested in the present case that the petitioner was acting capriciously by adopting a name of such a kind. Subject to his discretion to refuse to recognise a name of such a kind, Lyon had no power in the exercise of his administrative function relating to changes of names to withhold official recognition of a chosen name, even one which incorporated a territorial designation, where that was the name by which the petitioner was ordinarily known. If there were three Hopes of Craighead (each from the different Craighead in Ayrshire, Perthshire and Aberdeenshire) Lyon could not refuse to recognise them, assuming a territorial nexus. In any event, a territorial nexus was not a pre-requisite for the use of a territorial designation. There was no question of possible confusion in the present case, but it was not accepted that the risk of confusion was a legitimate basis for Lyon refusing to recognise a name. In the present case the basis of Lyon's decision was the absence of a proper territorial nexus. Lyon was obliged to put against the petitioner's arms the name which the petitioner was using. Lorimer, A Handbook of the Laws of Scotland, 2nd Ed (1862) stated at p 445 that Lyon

"will not, as popularly believed, grant authority to an individual to change his name; but on the narrative that he has already changed it .... will grant him arms under his new name; and in the patent, or, if desired, in an extract from the record, he will certify the fact of the change."

Lyon therefore did not authorise a change of name, but granted arms under the new name narrated.

[28] The fundamental rule which one had not to lose sight of was that in Scots law a person could take whatever name he pleased. You could call yourself what you liked. In taking a name a person may elect to include in it a territorial designation. Lyon could not lawfully act in such a way as to negate that right or disable its exercise. He had no discretion enabling him to determine the name or designation of the person to whom arms were granted or in whose name the grant was recorded: if he had such a discretion, he would in effect be entitled, without the consent of the person concerned, to change that person's name and that could not be right. In deciding whether he should recognise a name for the purpose of a grant of arms Lyon was not entitled to have regard to the wider concept of heraldry as involving virtue and merit. He had a residual discretion to refuse to recognise a name where the application was frivolous or vexatious or almost an abuse of process, but no wider discretion.

[29] Green's Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland, Vol X, stated at p 146, para 305:

"In making changes of name it is obviously necessary that some formal step be taken, so that the party's identity under the new name and the old name may be conclusively established, and in order to preclude the possibility of prosecution under the Registration Acts This may be done in several ways."

The six ways mentioned were (1) statute; (2) Royal licence; (3) Lord Lyon's certificate; (4) authority of the Court of Session; (5) public advertisement; and (6) marriage. So far as a Lord Lyon's certificate is concerned, the following is stated at p 147, para 308:

"The Scottish equivalent for the expensive Royal licence is a certificate of 'Official recognition of change of name" granted by the Lord Lyon King of Arms in virtue of his ministerial powers, wherein he exercises (within his jurisdiction) the Sovereign's prerogative. 'The Lord Lyon will not, as is popularly believed, grant authority to an individual to change his name, but on the narrative that he has already changed it, he will grant him arms under his new name, and .... will certify the fact of the change' (J H Lorimer, Handbook of the Law of Scotland, 2nd Ed, p445). This certificate is recognised by War Office and Admiralty as identifying the bearer of the new name, which is the only object of the King's Letters Patent. Lyon's certificate goes further: it 'officially recognises' the new name. When arms are granted or matriculated, the certificate is embodied in the patent or extract, but where no grant, matriculation or change of arms is desired, a 'Certificate of Change of Name" is granted ..."

[30] In Johnston, Petitioner (1899) 2F 75 the First Division held that, as a person does not require the authority of the court to change his name, the court will not grant authority except on special cause shown. In that case the petitioner averred that his name was entered in the Register of Births and in his certificate of baptism as Henry Johnston, but that for some years he had adopted and used the name of Henry Lindsay Johnston, and had been commonly known as such. In particular, his name had been entered as Henry Lindsay Johnston in the books of Trinity College, Cambridge, and of the University of Cambridge, where took his degree in the year 1897. On the occasion of his ordination as a deacon of the Church of England the Bishop of Rochester, through his diocesan secretaries, refused to enter in the petitioner's letters of orders any other name than was contained in his certificate of baptism, without evidence that the said name had been assumed with authority. The petitioner was about to enter into priest's orders in the Church of England and had been informed that the bishop of Rochester, through this diocesan secretaries, would again refuse to insert in his letters of orders the name Henry Lindsay Johnston. It was of importance to the petitioner, as a clergyman of the Church of England, that the name appearing in his letters of orders should be the same as that under which he took his degree at the University of Cambridge. The First Division granted the application. Lord Adam, with whom Lords McLaren and Kinnear concurred, stated at p 76:

"The petitioner's application is for authority to alter his name. Now, any person in Scotland may, without the authority of the court, call himself whatever he pleases, and, accordingly, when a petition for such a purpose is presented we are in use to dismiss it as unnecessary, unless sufficient reason is shewn for the application. The question, therefore, is whether there is good reason in this case. ..... Now, I have no doubt that the Bishop of Rochester will insert the petitioner's adopted name in his letters of orders if the petitioner receives the authority of the court to assume it. We are in use to grant petitions of this kind in the case of notaries and other such persons, and it rather appears to me that we should grant the application. I see no way in which Mr Johnston can get over the difficulty mentioned in the petition, unless we grant the application."

[31] In Robertson (1899) 2F 127 a petition was brought by a chartered accountant named James Alexander Robertson craving the court to authorise him "to assume, bear and henceforth to use the names James Alexander Durham-Robertson in exercising the offices of judicial factor, curator bonis, liquidator and trustee" to which he had from time to time been appointed and "to ordain this petition, and your Lordships' deliverance thereon, to be recorded in the Books of Sederunt". He stated that he had succeeded to the entailed estates of Boghead and Foulshiells, in the County of Linlithgow, and that the deeds of entail contained provisions that every heir succeeding to the entailed estates should assume and use the name of Durham. He had accordingly assumed and was to use and bear the name of Robertson-Durham and desired to obtain the authority of the court to use his altered name in the offices mentioned. He submitted that the authority of the court was necessary as the offices which he held were of a public nature and he had been appointed to most of them by the court. The prayer of the petition was refused by the First Division. Lord Adam stated at p 127:

"I am of the opinion that the petition is not necessary. Mr Robertson has a perfect right to change his name, and no one can prevent him from adding to or altering it. The case of a notary is different, because a notary is an imperial officer, and a person holding a public office may require authority. So in the case of a Writer to the Signet and other persons whose names are entered on a register. But there is nothing to prevent a private individual from changing his name."

Lord McLaren stated on the same page:

"I am of the same opinion. It is in accordance with practice that authority may be given to use a new name when the application is by someone who has been admitted to his profession by the court. If so, where the name is entered on a roll to which the authority of the court is given, or which is under the control of the court, it may be necessary to present an application for authority to change the name in order that the roll may be kept in order. But that rule does not apply to a professional accountant, and I am unable to see that any real difficulty arises from the fact that this gentleman has obtained executive appointments from the court."

Lord Kinnear concurred with his two brethren.

[32] Lyon's refusal to recognise officially the petitioner's change of name had undermined the petitioner's legal right to change his name. The petitioner had been denied official recognition of the name of his choice and therefore could not maintain the accuracy of the link between his identity and his coat of arms for other purposes. The petitioner had been unable to change his name on his passport, credit cards, bank account and driving licence. This was a practical impediment. The petitioner moved in social circles where interest was taken in matters of this sort. He was a member of the Heraldry Society of Scotland and the Society of Scottish Armigers, but had not been permitted to design himself "of Ardgowan", presumably because Lyon had refused to recognise him in that title. When a person in right of arms took a new name, or perhaps more accurately added to an existing one, he required to ensure that an accurate link was maintained between his new name and his arms. An official recognition fulfilled that purpose and also provided the individual with proof of the fact that his name had been changed. The petitioner sought a docquet in the entry in the register as evidence of the fact of his change of name.

[33] Lyon's position was that, in order that a person qualified for a territorial designation, there had to be a territorial nexus between him and the land, and if he granted a docquet recognising the petitioner's change of name that would give rise to a misrepresentation that there was a real nexus between the petitioner and the land in question. Such a view was misconceived, for the following reasons. First, it could not be reconciled with the fundamental rule of Scots law already mentioned, and which Lyon accepted, that a person may call himself by whatever name he chose. If the name on the register was not that by which the individual was already known, it was the register itself which produced a misrepresentation as it was not an accurate reflection of the name of the individual.

[34] Secondly, a territorial designation may well, and in the majority of cases probably did, signify a nexus between the individual and the land in question, but need not do so. A territorial nexus could not therefore be insisted upon as a pre-requisite in every case for the "valid" adoption and use of a territorial designation. Many territorial surnames had been retained by Scottish families long after their landed estate had been sold or otherwise disposed of. The "attainder" cases supported this proposition. In Forbes of Pitsligo (1749) Mor 4155 Alexander Lord Forbes of Pitsligo was attainted by the name of Alexander Lord Pitsligo. He claimed his estate as not forfeited, he not having been designed by his true name and title. The Court of Session sustained his claim, but the House of Lords reversed the judgment, as it was proved that he was commonly known by the title of Lord Pitsligo. In Macpherson of Cluny (1749) Mor 4160 an attainder by description from an estate of which the person was apparent heir was sustained. In Cameron of Lochiel (1749) Mor 4161 Donald Cameron was designed in the act of attainder younger of Lochiel, his father being alive, although as the estate belonged to himself, he ought not to have been designed younger. It was held that he had been properly described. In such cases the use of a territorial designation did not imply a nexus as the nexus had gone, but the designation continued to be used as there was a historical basis for it. The use of territorial designations was "admitted officially where used not merely as descriptions of ownership but actually as names" (Green's Encyclopaedia, Vol X, p143, para 301) It was the ordinary usage of the name, not the ownership of land or the territorial nexus, which was crucial. The petitioner did not need to qualify a territorial nexus, still less ownership, of a significant piece of land.

[35] Thirdly, if a territorial nexus was required to qualify a title, it was in any event satisfied. The 2000 Act received the royal assent on 9 June 2000. The appointed day was 28 November 2004. At the time the petition was presented to Lyon there was therefore a territorial nexus. There was a very limited discretion on the part of Lyon. Even a bare superiority before 28 November 2004 qualified as land: Cowan, Petitioner 1966 SLT (Lyon Ct) 2. Accordingly, at the time the petitioner presented his petition seeking to be officially recognised by Lyon in his chosen name and territorial designation he was infeft in lands. The disposition of the barony was for no value so as not to trigger a first registration in the Land Register and payment was made pursuant to a separate contract, a significant sum of money having changed hands.

[36] The submission for the petitioner on discretion could be summarised as follows:

(i)                  Lyon had no jurisdiction, in the exercise of his ministerial or administrative functions in relation to changes of name, to refuse official recognition of the petitioner's adoption of a territorial designation.

(ii)                In Scots Law a person was entitled to take any name of his own choosing and that name could include a territorial designation.

(iii)               For practical reasons certain formalities had to be observed by a person who took a new name.

(iv)              In relation to a person in right of arms, Lyon performed the function of recognising officially the chosen name, thereby creating the necessary link between the name and the grant of arms. Lyon's function was a purely formal and evidentiary one.

(v)                Lyon therefore had no right to refuse to recognise a name by which a person in right of arms was ordinarily known by reason of his failing, in Lyon's opinion, to qualify title in the sense of a territorial nexus to the name taken.

(vi)              If a territorial nexus was a pre-requisite for the recognition by Lyon of the territorial designation of an armigerous person then the petitioner was able to designate such a nexus at the time of the presentation of his petition to Lyon.

(ii) Submission for Lyon

[37] The principal proposition advanced on behalf of Lyon was that the petitioner had no right to require Lyon to register arms under a particular name. The 1672 Act enabled Lyon to grant arms to "virtuous and well-deserving persons". Lyon could refuse to register arms under a particular territorial designation if it was not a proper territorial designation or was liable to cause confusion. He could refuse to register a particular name if he thought it would bring heraldry into disrepute to do so. He could, for example, refuse to register arms under the name "Screaming Lord Sutch". No one had the right to arms, and no one could insist upon a territorial designation in the warrant which Lyon issued. Lyon was entitled to say that a person was not virtuous if he used a territorial designation in his name but had no substantial connection with the land in question. The present case was not about changes of names, but about an application for a variation in the terms of a grant of arms. Lyon was entitled to refuse such an application where only a superiority was held. Lyon's decision had to be shown to be outrageous and in defiance of logic (CCSU case at p 410 per Lord Diplock) before the court would be entitled to interfere with it.

[38] The use of a territorial designation had historically arisen from occupation of lands. Green's Encyclopaedia, Vol 10, p 142, para 300 stated:

"The territorial designation so frequently used by representatives of Scots 'Houses', their wives, heirs and daughters (and apart from ownership of the estate) originated - like the principal surname - from possession of land, but is really a form of the bun sloinn or genealogical surname. The secondary designation was already recognised, like a peerage nomen dignitatis, as 'part of the name' in the fifteenth century, and was so regarded by the Crown in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The statute 1672 c 47 did not, as sometimes supposed, institute or authorise these territorial titles, but recognised their existence as a 'form of title', and prescribed a specific signature, viz, the Christian name and surname with the territorial designation of the lands 'adjected', prefixing the word 'of' to the said 'designation'. The contemporary view, shewn by the earlier entails, was that a surname with designation so adjected constituted one name. Later entails usually specify 'name and designation' or 'name and title'. The Lord Advocate in the eighteenth century adhered to the view that 'where ordinarily used' they are simply 'names', and that if a person is attainted by the name 'John Cameron of Lochiel' he must be pardoned by a name consisting of these same words, and the Court sustained this."

[39] The use of a territorial designation therefore required a substantial nexus with the lands other than a superiority. Superiorities had now been abolished by the 2000 Act. There was a risk of confusion between the holder of the dominium utile and the holder of the superiority. It was reasonable of Lyon to recognise a territorial designation only where there was ownership of a significant piece of land, rather than a bare superiority. The terms of the petitioner's title demonstrated that the disponer was reserving to himself the lands and Estate of Ardgowan. Nothing in the Act required Lyon to recognise a territorial designation. It could not be said that Lyon had exercised his discretion unreasonably by refusing to register the applicant's arms under his territorial designation.

(iii) Discussion and conclusion

[40] The burden of the submission for the petitioner was that Lyon's jurisdiction was not to grant authority to a person to change his name, but only to recognise a name which the person had already chosen. Further, Lyon had only a limited discretion to refuse to recognise a change of name, and that was where the change was a capricious one in the case of a non-armigerous person. Examples which were given were of an obscene, offensive or racist name. Lyon's position was that he could refuse to accept a change of name to a territorial designation if the person had no substantial nexus with the lands in question.

[41] It is, in my opinion, clear that by the law of Scotland a person may call himself by whatever name he chooses. Whether this is a satisfactory state of affairs is another matter and not one for me to determine. A person does not require the authority of a court or any other public official in order to change his name. The function of Lyon in relation to changes of names is to give official recognition to a name which has already been changed, not to authorise the change of name itself. It was conceded that in the exercise of this jurisdiction Lyon had a discretion to refuse to recognise a change of name, but it was submitted that the discretion was a limited one which extended only to refusing to recognise name which were capricious in the case of non-armigerous persons. The reason which Lyon has given for refusing to recognise the petitioner's change of name is that he did not recognise a territorial designation where there was no substantial nexus between the applicant and the lands in question, and that a bare superiority did not, since the abolition of superiorities under the 2000 Act, constitute the required substantial nexus.

[42] If, as