RECLAIMING MOTION IN THE PETITION OF THE SCOTTISH CREEL FISHERMEN'S FEDERATION AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2021] ScotCS CSIH_68 (23 December 2021)

RECLAIMING MOTION IN THE PETITION OF THE SCOTTISH CREEL FISHERMEN'S FEDERATION AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2021] ScotCS CSIH_68 (23 December 2021)

The Guidance for pilot proposals did not apply to the new proposal, which was submitted and considered in a separate, stand-alone process. The respondents acted fairly, consulted appropriately, and provided adequate reasons. There was no legitimate expectation that the new proposal would be assessed solely against the original criteria. The Lord Ordinary's interlocutors were erroneous and must be recalled.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSIH_68
Parties
Petitioners and Respondents: The Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation; Respondents and Reclaimers: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Judicial Review Petition / Appeal Against Interlocutors of Lord Ordinary Dated 2 and 18 February 2021
Outcome
Reclaiming motion allowed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutors recalled; petition refused.
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Consultation Process, Government Policy
Administrative Law Public Law Legitimate Expectation Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Consultation Process Government Policy

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation

Petitioners and Respondents

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents and Reclaimers

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Judicial Review Petition / Appeal Against Interlocutors of Lord Ordinary Dated 2 and 18 February 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Guidance for pilot proposals applied to a new proposal submitted after initial pilot selection
  2. 2 Whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that the new proposal would be assessed against the original criteria
  3. 3 Whether the respondents acted with procedural fairness and provided adequate reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The Guidance for pilot proposals did not apply to the new proposal, which was submitted and considered in a separate, stand-alone process. The respondents acted fairly, consulted appropriately, and provided adequate reasons. There was no legitimate expectation that the new proposal would be assessed solely against the original criteria. The Lord Ordinary's interlocutors were erroneous and must be recalled.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion allowed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutors recalled; petition refused.

Orders

  • Recall interlocutors of 2 and 18 February 2021
  • Repel petitioners' third to sixth pleas-in-law