Packard & Ors, Re Application for Judicial Review [2011] ScotCS CSOH_148 (07 September 2011)

Packard & Ors, Re Application for Judicial Review [2011] ScotCS CSOH_148 (07 September 2011)

The second respondents had a sufficiently independent and valuable interest (existing planning permission) requiring protection, justifying separate representation and a second set of expenses. The petitioners' challenge, including interdict and issues unique to the second respondents, warranted their participation. The complexity, urgency, and scale of the case justified an additional fee under all heads claimed.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_148
Parties
Petitioners: Dulce Packard and Others; First Respondents: Scottish Ministers; Second Respondents: North British Wind Power
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Judgment Motions for Expenses and Additional Fee
Outcome
Motions granted. Both respondents awarded expenses of the judicial review and hearing on expenses against the petitioners. Second respondents entitled to an additional fee under Rule of Court 42.14(3)(a)-(f).
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Electricity Act 1989, Town and Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997, Expenses (costs), Additional Fee, Interdict, Bias, Mora and Personal Bar
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Judicial Review Planning Permission Electricity Act 1989 Town and Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997 Expenses (costs) +4 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dulce Packard and Others

Petitioners

Scottish Ministers

First Respondents

North British Wind Power

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Judgment Motions for Expenses and Additional Fee

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether second respondents (North British Wind Power) are entitled to expenses and an additional fee following successful opposition to the petition for judicial review.
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances justify a second set of expenses and an additional fee under Rule of Court 42.14(3).

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondents had a sufficiently independent and valuable interest (existing planning permission) requiring protection, justifying separate representation and a second set of expenses. The petitioners' challenge, including interdict and issues unique to the second respondents, warranted their participation. The complexity, urgency, and scale of the case justified an additional fee under all heads claimed.

Court Disposition

Motions granted. Both respondents awarded expenses of the judicial review and hearing on expenses against the petitioners. Second respondents entitled to an additional fee under Rule of Court 42.14(3)(a)-(f).

Orders

  • Award of expenses to Scottish Ministers (first respondents) on the normal scale, including today's appearance.
  • Award of expenses to North British Wind Power (second respondents).