Uprichard & Ors v Fife Council & Anor, Re Application For Judicial Review [2000] ScotCS 90 (31 March 2000)

Uprichard & Ors v Fife Council & Anor, Re Application For Judicial Review [2000] ScotCS 90 (31 March 2000)

The petitioners had sufficient interest to bring proceedings, but the petition was not brought promptly. The delay, combined with apparent acquiescence, prejudice to the developer, and the disruptive effect on good administration, justified sustaining the plea of mora and dismissing the petition. The planning authority's decision-making process regarding the environmental statement was inadequately recorded, but the petition failed on procedural grounds of delay.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 90
Parties
Petitioners: Miss Penelope Uprichard and Others; First Respondent: Fife Council; Second Respondent: St Andrews Bay Development Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing/opinion
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Standing (title and Interest), Planning Permission, Environmental Impact Assessment, Delay (mora), Good Administration
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Judicial Review Standing (title and Interest) Planning Permission Environmental Impact Assessment Delay (mora) +1 more

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Penelope Uprichard and Others

Petitioners

Fife Council

First Respondent

St Andrews Bay Development Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing/opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioners had sufficient interest to bring judicial review proceedings against the grant of planning permission.
  2. 2 Whether the petition was barred by delay (mora), acquiescence, or prejudice.
  3. 3 Whether the planning authority erred in not requiring an environmental statement under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1988.

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioners had sufficient interest to bring proceedings, but the petition was not brought promptly. The delay, combined with apparent acquiescence, prejudice to the developer, and the disruptive effect on good administration, justified sustaining the plea of mora and dismissing the petition. The planning authority's decision-making process regarding the environmental statement was inadequately recorded, but the petition failed on procedural grounds of delay.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed on grounds of mora (delay), acquiescence, prejudice, and adverse effect on good administration.