Exclusion orders had been sought under the Act, but refused for non-compliance with procedures under the Act. New applications were made to different courts, and the applicant said it was not open to the Authorities to make the same application again after it had been once refused.
Held: The procedure did not allow an appeal. In the circumstances, the renewed applications were not an abuse of process. An order is not concerned with achieving a permanent determination of rights and duties but with securing the protection of vulnerable persons in the light of information and advice which may change from time to time. Furthermore, the existence of time-limits for such orders, including at an interim stage, may make it difficult, if not impossible, for the same application to be kept in being until its final determination. Hence the need for a fresh application, which may or may not include additional supporting material.
Judges:
Lord President Lady Cosgrove Lord Cameron of Lochbroom
Citations:
[2003] ScotCS 202, 2003 SCLR 742
Links:
Statutes:
Children (Scotland) Act 1995 76 77 78 79 80
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Citing:
Cited – Magistrates of Portobello v Magistrates of Edinburgh 1882
‘where a well-known and recognised jurisdiction is invoked by the Legislature for the purpose of carrying out a series of provisions which are important for the public without any specific form of process being prescribed, the presumption is that . .
Cited – Harper v Inspector of Rutherglen 1903
Lord Trayner said: ‘Every judgment of an inferior Court is subject to review, unless such review is excluded expressly or by necessary implication’. . .
Cited – Allan and Sons Bill Posting Limited v Edinburgh Magistrates 1909
In asking whether an appeal was available, the presence or absence of a record of the decision at first instance is an indicator, since an appeal is more difficult without. . .
Cited – Allan and Sons Bill Posting Limited v Edinburgh Magistrates 1909
In asking whether an appeal was available, the presence or absence of a record of the decision at first instance is an indicator, since an appeal is more difficult without. . .
Cited – Central Regional Council v B 1985
In the absence of any specific provision forbidding or restricting appeals, the presumption was that the ordinary rules applied in respect of a summary application. Since those rules allowed appeals, the plea to the competency of an appeal from the . .
Cited – Roberton v Roberton 1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Children
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184669
