CHARLES O’NEILL and WILLIAM LAUCHLAN FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2020] ScotCS CSOH_28 (03 March 2020)

CHARLES O’NEILL and WILLIAM LAUCHLAN FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2020] ScotCS CSOH_28 (03 March 2020)

The grounds giving rise to the petition first arose on 17 August 2018 when the decision to terminate inter-prison telephone calls was made and communicated to the petitioners. The petition, presented almost six months later, was out of time under section 27A of the Court of Session Act 1988. There was no basis for personal bar or legitimate expectation, and no equitable grounds to allow the petition to proceed out of time.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_28
Parties
Pursuer: Charles O’Neill; Pursuer: William Lauchlan; Defender: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Decision on Time Bar Plea
Outcome
Petition dismissed as time-barred.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Time Bar, Legitimate Expectation, Personal Bar, Article 8 ECHR, Prisoner Rights
Administrative Law Prison Law Human Rights Judicial Review Time Bar Legitimate Expectation Personal Bar Article 8 ECHR +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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles O’Neill

Pursuer

William Lauchlan

Pursuer

Scottish Ministers

Defender

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Decision on Time Bar Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When did the grounds giving rise to the petition first arise for the purposes of section 27A of the Court of Session Act 1988?
  2. 2 Is the petition time-barred?
  3. 3 Are the respondents barred from insisting on a time bar plea due to personal bar or legitimate expectation?

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds giving rise to the petition first arose on 17 August 2018 when the decision to terminate inter-prison telephone calls was made and communicated to the petitioners. The petition, presented almost six months later, was out of time under section 27A of the Court of Session Act 1988. There was no basis for personal bar or legitimate expectation, and no equitable grounds to allow the petition to proceed out of time.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed as time-barred.

Orders

  • Respondents’ second plea-in-law upheld
  • Petition dismissed