Page:Margaret Hamilton of Rockhall v Lord Lyon King of Arms.pdf/12

 The Lord Lyon's practice prior to 28 November 2004

[21] The appointed day for the parts of the 2000 Act relevant to the issues in this case, under section 23 of the 2000 Act, was 28 November 2004 ("the appointed day"). An example of the Lord Lyon's practice prior to the appointed day was produced, in the form of the Letters Patent for Junaid Bhatti ("Mr Bhatti") subscribed by Lyon Blair on 27 July 2007. Mr Bhatti was named as "Baron of Ballencrieff". Towards the end of his letters patent there was what is known as a "nobility clause". The defender founds on the fact that such clauses have since been omitted from such deeds, without objection by the pursuer or the firm.

The practice between 28 November 2004 (ie the appointed day) and Agreement

[22] Although no example of Letters Patent issued in relation to this period was produced, it was a matter of averment and admission in the pleadings that various changes of wording were made, including the omission of the nobility clause in respect of grants made after 2007.

[23] Lyon Blair issued a detailed Note on 15 May 2006 ("Lyon Blair's Note") in connection with the present pursuer's original petition. At page 1 of Lyon Blair's Note he noted that the pursuer's petition (ie her application to the Lyon Court) was "the first Petition for a grant of Arms by a person claiming ownership of a barony which has come before me since the coming into force on [the appointed day]". In Lyon Blair's Note, Lyon Blair explained (at pages 1–2) why he was prepared to recognise the petitioner as holder of the Barony of Lag. Thereafter, Lyon Blair's Note explained why Lyon Blair was not willing to accept an entry in the Scottish Barony Register as evidence of ownership of a barony (pages 2–4). Finally, Lyon Blair's Note dealt with the question of baronial additaments (pages 4–9). (Baronial