Spey District Fishery Board v. Scottish Ministers & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_43 (24 March 2005)

Spey District Fishery Board v. Scottish Ministers & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_43 (24 March 2005)

The Scottish Ministers fulfilled their legal obligation to consult the petitioners on the substance of the proposed scheme under conditions 3.3 and 3.4. There was no requirement to provide the petitioners with the second respondents' letter of 10 March 2004, and the process was not procedurally unfair or irrational. The petitioners' only legitimate expectation was to be consulted, which was satisfied. The decision to discharge the conditions was lawful.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_43
Parties
Petitioner: Spey District Fishery Board; First Respondent: Scottish Ministers; Second Respondent: Fred Olsen Renewables Limited; Third Respondent: Paul's Hill Wind Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session Opinion
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Legitimate Expectation, Procedural Fairness, Consultation Requirements, Habitats Directive Compliance, Planning Consent Conditions
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Public Law Judicial Review Legitimate Expectation Procedural Fairness Consultation Requirements +2 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spey District Fishery Board

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

First Respondent

Fred Olsen Renewables Limited

Second Respondent

Paul's Hill Wind Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish Ministers' decision to discharge conditions 3.3 and 3.4 of the section 36 consent was unlawful for failure to afford procedural fairness and/or breach of legitimate expectation.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory consultation requirements were met.
  3. 3 Whether the Ministers' actions were irrational or contrary to natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Scottish Ministers fulfilled their legal obligation to consult the petitioners on the substance of the proposed scheme under conditions 3.3 and 3.4. There was no requirement to provide the petitioners with the second respondents' letter of 10 March 2004, and the process was not procedurally unfair or irrational. The petitioners' only legitimate expectation was to be consulted, which was satisfied. The decision to discharge the conditions was lawful.

Court Disposition

Petition refused