Tesco Stores Ltd, Re Judicial Review [2002] ScotCS 29 (30th January, 2002)

Tesco Stores Ltd, Re Judicial Review [2002] ScotCS 29 (30th January, 2002)

The Scottish Ministers' decision not to hold an Examination in Public was within their statutory discretion under Section 10(4)(b) of the 1997 Act. The decision was not ultra vires, unreasonable, nor based on a material error of fact. The petitioners' arguments misconstrued the nature and timing of the decision under review, and no grounds for judicial intervention were established.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 29
Parties
Petitioner: Tesco Stores Limited; First Respondent: Scottish Ministers; Second Respondent: Glasgow and The Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Town and Country Planning, Structure Plans, Examination in Public, Statutory Discretion
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review Town and Country Planning Structure Plans Examination in Public Statutory Discretion

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesco Stores Limited

Petitioner

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' decision not to hold an Examination in Public (EIP) was ultra vires or unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Ministers failed to consider relevant qualitative and quantitative retail need assessments
  3. 3 Whether the Ministers proceeded on a material error of fact

Ratio Decidendi

The Scottish Ministers' decision not to hold an Examination in Public was within their statutory discretion under Section 10(4)(b) of the 1997 Act. The decision was not ultra vires, unreasonable, nor based on a material error of fact. The petitioners' arguments misconstrued the nature and timing of the decision under review, and no grounds for judicial intervention were established.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed