TM AND PM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION TO REFUSE TO GRANT THE PETITIONERS' APPLICATION TO BE KINSHIP CARERS BY THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL [2017] ScotCS CSOH_139 (31 October 2017)

TM AND PM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION TO REFUSE TO GRANT THE PETITIONERS' APPLICATION TO BE KINSHIP CARERS BY THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL [2017] ScotCS CSOH_139 (31 October 2017)

The court held that the respondents substantially complied with their own procedures and any deviations did not cause prejudice to the petitioners. The appeal process afforded the petitioners additional opportunities and protections. The allegation of bias was unfounded as the correspondence in question did not influence the decision-maker or the process. Accordingly, the petitioners failed to establish procedural unfairness, ultra vires conduct, or bias.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_139
Parties
Petitioners: TM and PM; Respondents: The Highland Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Kinship Care, Procedural Fairness, Bias, Local Authority Decision Making, Children's Rights
Administrative Law Family Law Child Law Kinship Care Procedural Fairness Bias Local Authority Decision Making Children's 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TM and PM

Petitioners

The Highland Council

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents acted ultra vires or in breach of their own procedures in refusing the petitioners' application to be kinship carers
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' decision was procedurally unfair or inadequately reasoned
  3. 3 Whether there was bias in the respondents' handling of the application

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents substantially complied with their own procedures and any deviations did not cause prejudice to the petitioners. The appeal process afforded the petitioners additional opportunities and protections. The allegation of bias was unfounded as the correspondence in question did not influence the decision-maker or the process. Accordingly, the petitioners failed to establish procedural unfairness, ultra vires conduct, or bias.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Prayer of the petition refused
  • Respondents' second plea-in-law sustained