SHBA Ltd v Scottish Ministers & Anor For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 286 (13 December 2001)

SHBA Ltd v Scottish Ministers & Anor For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 286 (13 December 2001)

The court held that the discretion conferred on the Scottish Ministers by section 10(4)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 is broad and subjective, and that the decision not to hold an examination in public was not shown to be irrational, ultra vires, or improperly fettered. The Ministers were entitled to rely on internal advice, and there was no evidence of an unlawful policy or improper delegation. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the statutory threshold for judicial intervention was met.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 286
Parties
Petitioner: SHBA Limited; First Respondent: The Scottish Ministers; Second Respondent: Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Statutory Discretion, Planning Policy, Ultra Vires, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Planning Law Public Law Judicial Review Statutory Discretion Planning Policy Ultra Vires Procedural Fairness

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHBA Limited

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

First Respondent

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish Ministers acted ultra vires or unreasonably in refusing to hold an examination in public under section 10(4)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 regarding the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000.
  2. 2 Whether the Ministers improperly fettered their discretion by having a policy not to hold examinations in public.
  3. 3 Whether the decision-making process was properly exercised by the Scottish Ministers or unlawfully delegated to civil servants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the discretion conferred on the Scottish Ministers by section 10(4)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 is broad and subjective, and that the decision not to hold an examination in public was not shown to be irrational, ultra vires, or improperly fettered. The Ministers were entitled to rely on internal advice, and there was no evidence of an unlawful policy or improper delegation. The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the statutory threshold for judicial intervention was met.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.