Pilkington, Re Judicial Review [2013] ScotCS CSOH_148 (03 February 2013)

Pilkington, Re Judicial Review [2013] ScotCS CSOH_148 (03 February 2013)

The reporter was entitled to exercise her discretion to consider whether unnecessary expense had been caused by the planning authority's conduct, including assessing whether the application would have been refused for other reasons even if the proposed planning condition had been accepted. The reasons given in the expenses decision were adequate and based on evidence before the reporter. There was no error of law or ultra vires act.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_148
Parties
Petitioners: The Trustees of the Late Mrs Hilda Jane (or Johanna) Caroline Pilkington (otherwise Mrs Hilda Caroline Pilkington); Interested Party: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Opinion on Petition for Judicial Review of Reporter's Award of Expenses
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Award of Expenses in Planning Appeals, Discretion of Reporter in Expenses Awards
Administrative Law Planning Law Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Award of Expenses in Planning Appeals Discretion of Reporter in Expenses Awards

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

The Trustees of the Late Mrs Hilda Jane (or Johanna) Caroline Pilkington (otherwise Mrs Hilda Caroline Pilkington)

Petitioners

Scottish Ministers

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Opinion on Petition for Judicial Review of Reporter's Award of Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reporter's refusal to award expenses was unreasonable or ultra vires
  2. 2 Whether the reporter gave adequate reasons for the expenses decision

Ratio Decidendi

The reporter was entitled to exercise her discretion to consider whether unnecessary expense had been caused by the planning authority's conduct, including assessing whether the application would have been refused for other reasons even if the proposed planning condition had been accepted. The reasons given in the expenses decision were adequate and based on evidence before the reporter. There was no error of law or ultra vires act.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petitioners' pleas-in-law repelled
  • Petition dismissed