Aldi Stores LTD against The Highland Licensing Board (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCINV 24 (19 December 2025)

Aldi Stores LTD against The Highland Licensing Board (Sheriff Court Civil) [2026] SCINV 24 (19 December 2025)

The Highland Licensing Board's 2023 Policy was lawfully adopted following a competent and fair consultation process that met statutory and common law requirements. The Board's decision to refuse Aldi's application was not based on any error of law, incorrect material fact, breach of natural justice, or unreasonable exercise of discretion. Adequate reasons were given for the refusal, and the Board was entitled to apply its policy in the absence of evidence rebutting the presumption against increased off-sales capacity.

Citation
[2026] SCINV 24
Parties
Pursuer: Aldi Stores Limited; Defender: The Highland Licensing Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Licensing Policy, Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Consultation Process, Discretion of Public Bodies
Administrative Law Licensing Law Licensing Policy Judicial Review Natural Justice Consultation Process Discretion of Public Bodies

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aldi Stores Limited

Pursuer

The Highland Licensing Board

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Highland Licensing Board's 2023 Policy is unlawful due to procedural unfairness, irrationality, or unreasonableness in its formation and consultation process
  2. 2 Whether the Board acted contrary to natural justice or unreasonably exercised its discretion in refusing Aldi's application to vary its premises licence

Ratio Decidendi

The Highland Licensing Board's 2023 Policy was lawfully adopted following a competent and fair consultation process that met statutory and common law requirements. The Board's decision to refuse Aldi's application was not based on any error of law, incorrect material fact, breach of natural justice, or unreasonable exercise of discretion. Adequate reasons were given for the refusal, and the Board was entitled to apply its policy in the absence of evidence rebutting the presumption against increased off-sales capacity.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Defender's pleas-in-law 2, 3, 4, and 5 sustained
  • Pursuer found liable to defender in expenses of the appeal, as taxed