There was a challenge to decisions taken by the airport authority, under a bye-law, to refuse permits to the applicant taxi operators. During the hearing, the applicants sought to challenge the validity of the bye-law itself.
Held: Lord Morison refused to consider such a challenge in the absence of intimation to the taxi operators who had been granted permits under the contested bye-law. He said: ‘No intimation of the petition has been made to these persons, since in its present form it does not affect their interest . . It seems to me to be clear that the argument sought to be presented by the petitioners cannot be determined in the absence of intimation to other taxi operators who have an interest to uphold the validity of the permission granted to them.’
Judges:
Lord Morison
Citations:
Unreported, 23 February 1989
Cited by:
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Judicial Review
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.448088