RECLAIMING MOTION IN THE PETITION OF GARTMORE HOUSE AGAINST LOCH LOMOND & THE TROSSACHS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY AND THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2022] ScotCS CSIH_56 (20 December 2022)

RECLAIMING MOTION IN THE PETITION OF GARTMORE HOUSE AGAINST LOCH LOMOND & THE TROSSACHS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY AND THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2022] ScotCS CSIH_56 (20 December 2022)

The reporter and Scottish Ministers lawfully applied the statutory test for amending the core paths plan, balancing public access and landowner interests, and substantively addressed equality concerns; there was no material error of law or procedural defect, and the challenge fails on both grounds.

Citation
[2022] ScotCS CSIH_56
Parties
Petitioners and Reclaimers: Gartmore House; Respondents: Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority; Interested Parties: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion in Petition for Judicial Review / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Core Paths Plan Amendment, Public Access Rights, Equality Act Compliance, Landowner Interests, Judicial Review Standards
Administrative Law Planning Law Equality Law Core Paths Plan Amendment Public Access Rights Equality Act Compliance Landowner Interests Judicial Review Standards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gartmore House

Petitioners and Reclaimers

Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Authority

Respondents

The Scottish Ministers

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion in Petition for Judicial Review / Appeal (inner House, Court of Session)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reporter and Scottish Ministers lawfully applied the statutory test for amending the core paths plan under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The reporter and Scottish Ministers lawfully applied the statutory test for amending the core paths plan, balancing public access and landowner interests, and substantively addressed equality concerns; there was no material error of law or procedural defect, and the challenge fails on both grounds.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • Prayer of the petition refused as set out in statement 4.
  • No reduction of the respondents' decision to adopt the amended core paths plan.