Docherty, Re Application for Judicial Review [1999] ScotCS 260 (5 November 1999)

Docherty, Re Application for Judicial Review [1999] ScotCS 260 (5 November 1999)

No clear and unambiguous representation was made by the Council in its Guidance Note that a partner or director of a corporate applicant could retain their place on the waiting list; therefore, no legitimate expectation arose. The Council's enforcement of its policy was not unreasonable, and there was no basis for personal bar. The petitioner's grounds for judicial review failed.

Citation
[1999] ScotCS 260
Parties
Petitioner: Darren Docherty; Respondents: City of Edinburgh Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Judicial Review, Taxi Licensing, Personal Bar (estoppel), Reasonableness (wednesbury)
Administrative Law Local Government Law Legitimate Expectation Judicial Review Taxi Licensing Personal Bar (estoppel) Reasonableness (wednesbury)

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Docherty

Petitioner

City of Edinburgh Council

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's requirement that a partner/director of a corporate taxi licence applicant must surrender their place on the waiting list was unlawful or unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Council's Guidance Note created a legitimate expectation that such persons could retain their place on the waiting list
  3. 3 Whether the Council was personally barred (estopped) from enforcing the requirement due to representations made

Ratio Decidendi

No clear and unambiguous representation was made by the Council in its Guidance Note that a partner or director of a corporate applicant could retain their place on the waiting list; therefore, no legitimate expectation arose. The Council's enforcement of its policy was not unreasonable, and there was no basis for personal bar. The petitioner's grounds for judicial review failed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Sustained the respondents' first plea in law
  • Dismissed the petition