DAVID CHRISTIE THOMSON v. ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL [2011] ScotSC 75 (23 March 2011)

DAVID CHRISTIE THOMSON v. ABERDEEN CITY COUNCIL [2011] ScotSC 75 (23 March 2011)

The committee was entitled to conclude, on the evidence and the applicant's own admissions, that he was not a fit and proper person to hold an HMO licence, as he had deliberately sought to circumvent the licensing requirements by creating a sham arrangement. The committee did not act unreasonably, take account of irrelevant material, or breach natural justice. The claimed exemptions did not apply on the facts.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 75
Parties
First Pursuer: David Christie Thomson; Second Pursuer: Eileen Diana Ross MacAdie or Thomson; Defender: Aberdeen City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Civic Government (scotland) Act 1982 / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal refused and dismissed; second pursuer's appeal dismissed as incompetent; expenses awarded against first pursuer.
Legal Topics
Fit and Proper Person Test, Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation, Exemptions Under HMO Regulations, Natural Justice, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Administrative Law Licensing Law Fit and Proper Person Test Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation Exemptions Under HMO Regulations Natural Justice Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Christie Thomson

First Pursuer

Eileen Diana Ross MacAdie or Thomson

Second Pursuer

Aberdeen City Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Civic Government (scotland) Act 1982 / Judgment After Hearing of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders' licensing committee erred in refusing an HMO licence on the basis that the applicant was not a fit and proper person
  2. 2 Whether the committee took account of irrelevant or incorrect material
  3. 3 Whether the committee acted in breach of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The committee was entitled to conclude, on the evidence and the applicant's own admissions, that he was not a fit and proper person to hold an HMO licence, as he had deliberately sought to circumvent the licensing requirements by creating a sham arrangement. The committee did not act unreasonably, take account of irrelevant material, or breach natural justice. The claimed exemptions did not apply on the facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused and dismissed; second pursuer's appeal dismissed as incompetent; expenses awarded against first pursuer.

Orders

  • Repels pursuers' pleas in law 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
  • Sustains defenders' pleas in law 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6