Category: Scotland

Walton v The Scottish Ministers: SCS 29 Feb 2012

The reclaimer challenged the making of several orders redesignating roads around the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route.

Judges:

Lord Clarke, Lord Bonomy, Lord Philip

Citations:

[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 19, [2012] CSIH 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Roads (Scotland) Act 1984

Citing:

At Outer House – Walton and Others v The Scottish Ministers SCS 11-Aug-2011
Outer House – Opinion . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Planning, European

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451731

Doogan and Another, Re Judicial Review: SCS 29 Feb 2012

(Outer House, Court of Session) Midwives worked on a labour ward which also had care of patients having later terminations. As sincere Roman Catholics, they sought to assert a right of conscientious objection to allow them to be excused from taking part in the support of such patients.
Held: The action failed.

Judges:

Lady Smith

Citations:

[2012] ScotCS CSOH – 32, [2012] CSOH 32

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Abortion Act 1967 4(2)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Doogan and Another v NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board SCS 24-Apr-2013
(Extra Division, Inner House) The reclaimers, Roman Catholic midwives working on a labour ward as co-ordinators, sought to assert a right of conscientious objection under the 1967 Act. The respondents said that only those directly involved in the . .
At Outer House – Greater Glasgow Health Board v Doogan and Another SC 17-Dec-2014
Roman Catholic Midwives, working as Labour Ward Co-ordinators had objected to being involved in an administrative capacity in abortions being conducted by the appellants. The Outer House had said they were not entitled to opt out, but the Inner . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451719

Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another: SC 29 Feb 2012

The claimant sought leave to appeal. Each party now sought security for costs against the other. Her action related to water damage to her house said to have been caused by road mprovements and building works erected by and with the approval of the various defendants.
Held: The rule in the House of Lords was that a non-legally aided appellant should lodge andpound;25,000 as security with the House to proceed. The Supreme Court had decide not to follow that rule. The case for an award of security was compelling. The value of unpaid costs ordered against the appellant already exceeded the value of her house, the proposed appeal appeared to be without merit, the appellants averments had already been found irrelevant, and the appeal was arguably an abuse. An order for security of andpound;20,000 was made, to be paid as a condition of proceeding with the appeal.

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed

Citations:

[2012] UKSC 7, UKSC 2011/0094

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another SCS 16-Feb-2010
The petitioner complained that the responders had constructed various properties near her house in such a way as to redirect large volumes of run-off water onto her property.
Held: The petition was dismissed. The petitioner had not relevantly . .
See Also – Anderson v Shetland Islands Council and Another SCS 15-Nov-2011
. .
Cited – Ritchie v M’Intosh 10-Jan-1881
Lord Young said that absolute impecuniosity is never the sole reason for making an order requiring payment of a sum by way of security for the costs on an appeal: ‘The conduct of the cause may be such, or other matters may transpire, which may make . .
Cited – Will v Sneddon Campbell and Munro SCS 1931
Lord Hunter said: ‘It is well settled, no doubt, that, if a man is bankrupt and if he is divested of his estate, he is not entitled to sue an action unless he finds caution. But that is only a general rule; there are exceptions even to that. On the . .
Cited – Rush v Fife Regional Council SCS 1985
The sheriff’s decision to order caution was upheld, having regard to the pursuer’s conduct, the nature of his pleadings which were said to be hopelessly irrelevant and his failure to pay the expenses awarded against him in another action. Lord . .
Cited – Stevenson v Midlothian District Council HL 1983
The pursuer was an undischarged bankrupt. The Lord Ordinary ordered him to find caution, although he was in receipt of legal aid. He said that he had had regard to the nature of the action and the pleadings, as well as to the fact that he was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Costs

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451701

Rule v Scottish Ministers: SIC 13 Dec 2011

Correspondence with named individuals – Mr Rule requested from the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) all information held by the First Minister’s Office contained in correspondence with any one of a list of 19 named people. The Ministers failed to respond and Mr Rule requested a review. Following the review, when the Ministers responded by stating that Mr Rule’s requests were invalid, Mr Rule remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that the Ministers had failed to deal with Mr Rule’s requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, by incorrectly concluding that the requests did not fulfil the requirements of section 8(1) of FOISA. He was satisfied that the requests met those requirements and were therefore valid. Consequently, he required the Ministers to review their handling of Mr Rule’s information requests, and notify him of the outcome of that review.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 245 – 2011)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451555

G v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission: SIC 14 Dec 2011

Identity and relationship of decision-makers – Mr G requested from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (the SLCC) information as to whether a named person was personally acquainted with certain decision-makers and/or members of the SLCC board, and also the identities of those involved in making a particular decision. The SLCC did not respond and Mr G wrote to the SLCC requiring it to carry out a review. Following a review, as a result of which the SLCC responded to the effect that it did not hold any information falling within the scope of the first request and considered the second request to be vexatious, Mr G remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner was satisfied that the SLCC did not hold any information falling within the scope of Mr G’s first request. He also accepted that the second request was vexatious and that, by virtue of section 14(1) of FOISA, the SLCC was not obliged to comply with it.
However, the Commissioner also found that in failing to provide a response to Mr G’s request within 20 working days, the SLCC breached section 10(1) of FOISA. He did not require the SLCC to take any action in relation to this failure.

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 246 – 2011)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 1(1) 1(4) 1(6)

Scotland, Information, Legal Professions

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451557

Cherbi v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission: SIC 8 Nov 2011

Whether requests vexatious – Mr Cherbi requested from the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (the SLCC) information relative to compensation payments and hospitality offered. The SLCC responded to the effect that the information requested was intended for publication and relied upon section 27(1)(a)(i) of FOISA.
Following reviews, as a result of which the SLCC informed Mr Cherbi that it considered his requests to be vexatious in terms of section 14(1) of FOISA, Mr Cherbi remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, during which the SLCC withdrew its reliance upon section 14(1), the Commissioner found that the SLCC had failed to deal with Mr Cherbi’s requests for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA, on the basis that Mr Cherbi’s requests were not vexatious in terms of section 14(1).

Citations:

[2011] ScotIC 219 – 2011)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451548

Tom Gordon and Scottish Ministers: SIC 6 Feb 2012

SIC This decision considers whether the Scottish Ministers (the Ministers) complied with the technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to an information request made by Mr Gordon

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 024 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451527

Greig and Chief Constable of Grampian Police: SIC 3 Feb 2012

SIC Ms Greig requested from the Chief Constable of Grampian Police (Grampian Police) information relative to two specific investigations, one relating to the death of an individual and one relating to criminal allegations. Grampian Police responded by stating that it did not hold certain of the information, while withholding the remainder under various exemptions in FOISA. Following a review, Ms Greig remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Grampian Police had complied with FOISA in dealing with Ms Greig’s information requests. Insofar as the requested information was held by Grampian Police, he accepted that it had been properly withheld under exemptions relating to investigation of the cause of a death (section 34(2)(b)(ii)) or personal data (section 38(1)(a) and (b)).

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 021 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451529

Graham Devine and South Lanarkshire Council: SIC 5 Jan 2012

SIC Mr Devine requested from South Lanarkshire Council (the Council) information relating to an incident that had affected his property. The Council responded by providing some information, but withholding other information in terms of section 36(1) of FOISA (as information to which a claim of confidentiality could be maintained in legal proceedings). The Council also gave notice that it did not hold any information in respect of part of Mr Devine’s request. Following a review, as a result of which the Council disclosed some more information, but also relied upon section 38(1)(b) of FOISA for withholding certain personal information, Mr Devine remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, in the course of which Mr Devine confirmed that he was not interested in certain of the withheld personal data, the Commissioner found that the Council had been correct in withholding the remainder of the information under either section 36(1) or section 38(1)(b) of FOISA. He did not require any action by the Council.

Citations:

[2012] ScotIC 002 – 2012)

Links:

Bailii

Scotland, Information

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.451511

Mr Walter Stirling Writer In Edinburgh v William Gray, of Invereighty Ex Parte (A): HL 13 Feb 1727

Penal Irritancy – Homologation
A collector of taxes, during Cromwell’s usurpation enters into an agreement with a person who had a commission to sue, compound, transact, and agree on the part of the Crown: to this commissioner the collector granted bonds for certain sums, and the commissioner obliged himself to deliver to the collector, by a day certain, a release from the Crown, otherwise the parties to remain as they were before the bonds were granted: it is found that this no penal irritancy, and not to be purged after elapsing of that day.
A payment by the collector, after the elapsing of that day, was no homologation, or passing from the resolutive clause.

Citations:

[1727] UKHL Robertson – 590, (1727) Robertson 590

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Scotland

Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.554235

Smith of Pentland Homeowners Association and Dundee City Council: SIC 28 Feb 2006

Information relating to re-roofing works at Tullideph Road, Dundee – information withheld under section 33(1)(b) – substantial prejudice to commercial interests – section 33(1)(a) – trade secrets – section 36(2) – disclosure would constitute an actionable breach of confidence – section 17 – information not held – section 30(c) – substantial prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 034 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.434519

Wickham and Moray Council: SIC 1 Feb 2006

Request for planning documents – information held in authority’s publication scheme – charge levied for supply of information – whether section 25(1) applied – failure to respond to request for review in accordance with section 21(1)

Citations:

[2006] ScotIC 015 – 2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Scotland, Information

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.434520

Lauchlan and Another v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 8 Feb 2012

Citations:

[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 20

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Lauchlan and Another v HM Advocate HCJ 5-Jun-2009
The appellants were charged with murder. They appealed against an extension of time given to allow the prosecution to proceed.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
See Also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another SCS 17-Jul-2009
Decision as to preliminary issues raised. . .
See Also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another HCJ 14-Jan-2010
. .
See Also – HM Advocate v Lauchlan and Another HCJ 2-Jul-2010
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Lauchlan and Another v HM Advocate HCJ 19-Apr-2012
. .
See Also – O’Neill v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2012
. .
See Also – O’Neill v Her Majesty’s Advocate No 2 SC 13-Jun-2013
The appellants had been convicted of murder, it being said that they had disposed of her body at sea. They now said that the delay between being first questioned and being charged infringed their rights to a trial within a reasonable time, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Crime

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.451014

Kapri v The Lord Advocate for and On Behalf of The Court of First Instance Judicial District of Elbasan, Albania: HCJ 2 Feb 2012

The applicant objected to his proposed extradition to Albania, saying that he would not receive a fair trial. An examination of the reports disclosed that counsel for the Lord Advocate’s analysis of them was correct. None of the examples of the particular deficiencies in the judicial system impacted on circumstances in which the appellant would find himself if returned to face trial in Albania. The material which they contained was of a wholly general nature, and it contained nothing to suggest that any of the concerns identified would apply to his case. Lord Turnbull said: ‘Nothing within either report supports the appellant’s contention that ‘he’ would face an unfair trial on his return to Albania or in any way supports his contention that any retrial would lack the fundamental requirements of article 6. We note also that nothing in either report bears upon the question of whether any such retrial would comply with the particular requirements referred to in section 85(8) of the Act. Accordingly, in our view, the proposed new evidence contained in the reports prepared by Dr Bogdani and Ms Vickers is irrelevant to the ground of appeal in question and ought not to be admitted for this reason.’

Judges:

(Lady Paton, Lord Turnbull and Lord Marnoch

Citations:

[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 17

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Cited by:

See Also – Kapri v The Lord Advocate Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania HCJ 1-Jun-2012
. .
At HCJ – Kapri v The Lord Advocate (Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania) SC 10-Jul-2013
The Court was asked whether it would be compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the appellant, who is an Albanian national, to be extradited to Albania. On 7 April 2001, while he was in . .
See Also – Kapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate (For The Republic of Albania) HCJ 25-Apr-2014
. .
See Also – Kapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate, Re In The Application By (Albania) HCJ 17-Jun-2014
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Extradition

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.451013

EDI Central Ltd v National Car Parks Ltd: SCS 20 Jan 2012

Judges:

Lord Glennie

Citations:

[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 6, 2011 SLT 75, 2010 GWD 37-754

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Sheffield District Railway co v Great Central Railway Co 1911
(Rail and Canal Commissioners) The Sheffield District Railway agreed (in a contract appended to a special Act of Parliament, with the Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway for the operation of a short line with two stations by means of which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Contract

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450595

Davies and Another (T/A All Star) v The Scottish Commission for The Regulation of Care: SCS 24 Jan 2012

The Commission had begun proceedings seeking to revoke the Davies’ registration to provide nursery facilities. The Commission was dissolved and the Sherriff had found that the new body could not take over the proceedings.
Held: The appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Lord President, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Marnoch

Citations:

[2012] ScotCS CSIH – 7, 2012 SLT 269, [2012] CSIH 7, 2012 GWD 5-95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001, Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010

Citing:

Appeal from – Davies and Another v The Scottish Commission for The Regulation of Care ScSf 9-May-2011
The pursuers ran a day care nursery. They had been subject to proceedings for the cancellation of their registration. The Commission had been dissolved and replaced by a new body, and they said that the new body could not be substituted in that . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Davies and Another (T/A All Stars Nursery) v The Scottish Commission for The Regulation of Care SC 27-Feb-2013
The appellants ran a day care nursery regulated under the 2001 Act. The Commission, being concerned at the care provided, sought to revoke the registration in proceedings before the Sherriff’s Court. Before they were concluded, the Commission was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Health Professions, Administrative

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450594

L Batley Pet Products Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council: SCS 20 Dec 2011

(Outer House) The pursuers were mid-tenants and the responders their sub-tenants. Before the expiry of the sub-lease, the pursuer reqested re-instatement, but the responder now said that thie notice should have been formal to be effective.
Held: Batley had pleaded a relevant case because she construed clause 2.5 of the Minute of Agreement as allowing Batley to communicate orally that it required the reinstatement of the sub-let premises. She allowed the parties a proof before answer of their averments. Per incuriam in her interlocutor of 20 December 2011 she repelled the Council’s plea to the relevancy.

Judges:

Morag Wise QC

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 209

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Outer House – Batley Pet Products v North Lanarkshire Council SCS 7-Nov-2012
(Extra Division) The mid-landlord had requested the sub-tenant to execute repairs before the lease expired. The tenant said that the requirement should have been notified formally to create an obligation. The landlord now appealed against a finding . .
Outer House – L Batley Pet Products Ltd v North Lanarkshire Council SC 8-May-2014
The appellant was mid-landlord and the respondent the sub-tenant under a now-expired lease. The appellant had wanted repairs to be executed but told the tenant informally. The tenant argued that the lease required formal notice to create an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450138

Gillespie v Gillespie and Others: SCS 30 Nov 2011

Outer House, Court of Session – supplementary opinion

Judges:

Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSOH – 201

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Gillespie v Gillespie and Others (No 1) SCS 18-Nov-2011
. .
See Also – Gillespie v Gillespie and Others (No 2) SCS 18-Nov-2011
. .
See Also – Gillespie v Gillespie and Others (No 3) SCS 18-Nov-2011
. .
See Also – Gillespie v Gillespie and Others (No 4) SCS 18-Nov-2011
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Company, Land

Updated: 04 October 2022; Ref: scu.450123

Margrie Holdings Ltd v City of Edinburgh District Council: IHCS 1994

When asking whether a claim for damages could properly include an additional element to recover additional costs of an impecunious pursuer, the proper approach, consistent with the modern authorities, was to ask whether the loss was or was not foreseeable and that this was ultimately a question of fact in each case.

Judges:

Hope, Lord President

Citations:

1994 SLT 971, 1994 SC 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Applied – Chanthall Investments Ltd v F G Minter Ltd OHCS 22-Jan-1976
The court considered the approach to claims for damages which had been made worse because of the impecuniosity of the victim: ‘I am of opinion that in each case where the matter arises it is a question of fact, in the particular circumstances, . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lagden v O’Connor HL 4-Dec-2003
The parties had been involved in a road traffic accident. The defendant drove into the claimant’s parked car. The claimant was unable to afford to hire a car pending repairs being completed, and arranged to hire a car on credit. He now sought . .
Cited – Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL 18-Jul-2007
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.188651

Elsick Development Co Ltd v Aberdeen City and Shire Stratetgic Development Planning Authority and Another: SCS 29 Apr 2016

(First Division, Inner House) ED appealed from the adoption of a supplementary guidance (SG).
Held: The appeal succeeded. The First Division upheld three of the four grounds of appeal advanced. First, the court upheld the submission that the Authority had failed to comply with national policy on the use of planning obligations, holding that it was a fundamental principle of planning law, which was reflected in the Circular, that a condition attached to the grant of a planning permission, whether contained in a planning obligation or otherwise, must fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development. The First Division accepted the distinction, which the reporter had drawn, between the sharing of costs among developments which had cumulatively required a particular investment in transport infrastructure on the one hand and the funding of a basket of measures, not all of which were relevant to every development. The court referred to the original Table 7.2 and held that many of the planned developments had no impact at all on several of the proposed infrastructure interventions. It added: ‘. . this applies to both Elsick and Blackdog relative to a number of the interventions. In respect of others the impact is de minimis’. The result was that the additional sentence in the SG about complying with the guidance in the Circular, which was added at the request of the Scottish Ministers, could not prevent the obligation to contribute to the Fund, in which contributions were pooled, from breaching the Circular. The First Division also upheld Elsick’s submission that there was no rational basis for relying on Table 3 of Appendix 2 of the SG (ie the revised table 7.2 of the CTA) to support the contention that a particular intervention was made necessary by reason of either a particular development or the cumulative effect of it along with other developments.

Judges:

Lrd Carloway

Citations:

[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 28, 2016 GWD 19-347

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 75, Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited SC 25-Oct-2017
The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.564408

Fife Council v Uprichard: SCS 10 Nov 2011

The applicant had had rejected her challenge to the planning policy of the respondens. The court now considered the Council’s motion for expenses.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Hodge, Lord McEwan

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 77, [2011] CSIH 77

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

Citing:

See Also – Uprichard v Order of The Scottish Ministers SCS 30-Jul-2010
The petitioners soiught to object to the decision of the Ministers to approve a structure plan proposed for the future development of St Andrews.
Held: The request was refused. . .
Principal judgment – Uprichard v The Scottish Ministers and Another SCS 7-Sep-2011
The applicant sought a reclaiming motion against the local council’s Structure plan.
Held: The request was refused. Lord Justice Clerk Gill said: ‘A structure plan is that part of the statutory development plan that sets out the overall . .

Cited by:

See Also – Uprichard v Scottish Ministers and Another (Scotland) SC 24-Apr-2013
The appellants challenged the adequacy of the reasons given by the respondents in approving planning policies, in particular the structure plan, adopted by Fife Council for the future development of St Andrews. An independent expert’s report had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Planning, Costs

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449773

Cramaso Llp v Rt Hon Ian Derek Francis OgilIe-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others: SCS 7 Dec 2011

Inner House The defenders owned a grouse moor. There had been difficulties with the grouse population, and efforts over several years to restore them. The defenders sought to find a tenant. Negotiations were conducted with Mr Erskine, and an email was sent to him making what were now seen to be misleading representations about the grouse population. Mr Erskine formed a company, the pursuer, to take a lease. The pursuer sought reduction of the lease and damages because of the reduction. It was conceded on behalf of the respondents that the Lord Ordinary had erred in considering that the non-existence of the appellant at the time when the email was sent was necessarily an insuperable obstacle to the existence of a duty of care: it was accepted that in appropriate circumstances a duty of care could be owed to a class of persons, some of whom might not then be in existence. However the defenders asserted that no possible duty of care could be owed to the pursuers.
Held: Applying Caparo, no duty of care had been owed by the respondents to the appellant.

Judges:

Lord Marnoch

Citations:

[2011] ScotCS CSIH – 81, 2012 SC 240, 2012 GWD 1-11

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Appeal from – Cramaso Llp v Viscount Reidhaven’s Trustees SCS 11-May-2010
Outer House – The pursuer said that it had been misled into taking a lease of a grouse moor by the responders making a repesentation to Mr Erskine who had conducted negotiations, and then created the pursuer as a vehicle for the lease. He sought the . .
Cited – Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and others HL 8-Feb-1990
Limitation of Loss from Negligent Mis-statement
The plaintiffs sought damages from accountants for negligence. They had acquired shares in a target company and, relying upon the published and audited accounts which overstated the company’s earnings, they purchased further shares.
Held: The . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Cramaso Llp v Ogilvie-Grant, Earl of Seafield and Others SC 12-Feb-2014
The defenders owned a substantial grouse moor in Scotland. There had been difficulties with grouse stocks, and steps taken over years to allow stocks to recover. They had responded to enquiries from one Mr Erskine with misleading figures. Mr Erskine . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Negligence

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449779

City of Edinburgh Council v Secretary of State for Scotland and Another; Same v Same (Conjoined Appeals): HL 31 Oct 1997

The Listed buildings registers are to be read consistently; the trading level is a material consideration in listed buildings consent applications. The weight to be given to a material consideration once identified was a matter of judgment for the decision maker alone.
Lord Clyde said: ‘In the practical application of section 18A, it will obviously be necessary for the decision-maker to consider the development plan, identify any provisions in it which are relevant to the questions before him, and make a proper interpretation of them. His decision will be open to challenge if he fails to have regard to a policy in the development plan which is relevant to the application or fails properly to interpret it. He will also have to consider whether the development proposed in the application before him does or does not accord with the development plan. There may be some points in the plan which support the proposal but there may be some considerations pointing in the opposite direction. He will require to assess all of these and then decide whether in the light of the whole plan the proposal does or does not accord with it. He will also have to identify all the other material considerations which are relevant to the application and to which he should have regard. He will then have to note which of them support the application and which of them do not, and he will have to assess the weight to be given to all of these considerations. He will have to decide whether there are considerations of such weight as to indicate that the development plan should not be accorded the priority which the statute has given to it. And having weighed these considerations and determined these matters he will require to form his opinion on the disposal of the application. If he fails to take account of some material consideration or takes account of some consideration which is irrelevant to the application his decision will be open to challenge. But the assessment of the considerations can only be challenged on the ground that it is irrational or perverse.’
As to the need to identify the property, he said: ‘the form of notice does not require a description of the building to be given. The assumption is that the name of the building will be sufficient to identify what is in the list.’

Judges:

Lord Clyde, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead

Citations:

Gazette 05-Nov-1997, Times 31-Oct-1997, [1997] UKHL 38, [1997] 1 WLR 1447, [1998] 1 All ER 174, 1998 SC (HL) 33

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 18A

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) QBD 31-Jul-2000
Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and . .
Cited – Barratt and Another v Ashford Borough Council CA 25-Jan-2011
The house owners disputed whether at the time they had carried out certain works, the house had been a listed building, saying it had been ommitted from the official list. The respondent said that it had appeared but admitted that the designation . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 7-Feb-2011
The claimant sought judicial review of a statement and letter by the respondent making a material consideration for planning authorities the intended revocation by the Respondent of Regional Spatial Strategies. The effect would be to allow the . .
Cited – Hinds, Regina (on The Application of) v Blackpool Council Admn 17-Mar-2011
The council had resolved to grant planning permission for a development, but before the permission was actually granted the Secretary of State had written to planning authorities saying that he intended to abolish the ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’. . .
Cited – Cala Homes (South) Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another CA 27-May-2011
The respondent had circularised local authorities to say that when assessing future local housing needs a proper material consideration was the proposed Localism Bill which would lead to the replacement of ‘Regional Spatial Strategies’ on which such . .
Cited – Cherkley Campaign Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Longshot Cherkley Court Ltd Admn 22-Aug-2013
The campaign company sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent granting permission to develop nearby land as a golf course.
Held: The application succeeded. The Secretary of State in preserving the effect of certain policies had . .
Approved – Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council SC 21-Mar-2012
The company challenged the grant of planning permission for a competitor to open a new supermarket within 800 metres of its own, saying that the Council had failed to apply its own planning policies, which required preference of suitable sites not . .
Cited – Wind Prospect Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another Admn 5-Dec-2014
The claimant appealed against refusal of permission to erect a six turbine wind farm. The inspector had recommended the plan, but the defendant had decided against it.
Held: The claim failed. The planning inspector’s report is the . .
Cited – Newsmith Stainless Ltd, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions Admn 1-Feb-2001
Application was made to quash an inspector’s decision.
Held: An inspector’s decision was not to be challenged as to its facts. In any case where the expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness or . .
Cited – G v Scottish Ministers and Another SC 18-Dec-2013
The 2003 Act had been intended to make provision for those who had been in long term mental health carse, but would not need such continued are but were not either ready to survive without continuing support in the community. The claimant had been . .
Cited – Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The Court was asked as to the proper interpretation of paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework: ‘Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for . .
Cited – Aberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited SC 25-Oct-2017
The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning

Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.79147