Cannell, Re [2002] ScotCS 62 (8th March, 2002)

Cannell, Re [2002] ScotCS 62 (8th March, 2002)

The Scottish Ministers are not empowered by section 265(9) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 to award expenses to the petitioner for the abortive public inquiry, as they are not 'parties' to the inquiry. Refusal to entertain the claim for expenses does not breach the petitioner's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The petitioner's averments are irrelevant and the petition is dismissed.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 62
Parties
Petitioner: James Cannell; Respondents: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision, Listed Buildings Enforcement, Award of Expenses, Interpretation of Statutory Powers, European Convention on Human Rights
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Judicial Review of Administrative Decision Listed Buildings Enforcement Award of Expenses Interpretation of Statutory Powers European Convention on Human Rights

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Cannell

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Scottish Ministers have statutory power to award expenses for abortive public inquiry under section 265(9) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997
  2. 2 Whether refusal to consider liability for expenses breaches Articles 6(1), Article 1 of the First Protocol, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Scottish Ministers are not empowered by section 265(9) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 to award expenses to the petitioner for the abortive public inquiry, as they are not 'parties' to the inquiry. Refusal to entertain the claim for expenses does not breach the petitioner's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The petitioner's averments are irrelevant and the petition is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Sustain respondents' first plea-in-law
  • Dismiss the petition