Cameron v. East Fife Area Regulation Sub-Committee Fife Council [2005] ScotSC 46 (11 July 2005)

Cameron v. East Fife Area Regulation Sub-Committee Fife Council [2005] ScotSC 46 (11 July 2005)

The inclusion of two councillors who had participated in School Board meetings discussing objections to the pursuer's licence created a reasonable suspicion of bias and was contrary to natural justice. The committee's decision was therefore procedurally flawed and must be set aside and remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted committee.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 46
Parties
Pursuer: Murray Cameron; Defender: East Fife Area Regulation Sub-Committee, Fife Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Summary Application (appeal Against Licensing Decision) / Judgment After Submissions, No Oral Evidence
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; committee's decision reversed to the extent of remitting for reconsideration by a differently constituted committee.
Legal Topics
Natural Justice, Bias in Decision Making, Street Trading Licences, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Licensing Law Local Government Law Natural Justice Bias in Decision Making Street Trading Licences Procedural Fairness

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murray Cameron

Pursuer

East Fife Area Regulation Sub-Committee, Fife Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Application (appeal Against Licensing Decision) / Judgment After Submissions, No Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders acted contrary to natural justice in the constitution of the committee deciding the pursuer's licence application
  2. 2 Whether the defenders exercised their discretion in an unreasonable manner by imposing an exclusion zone

Ratio Decidendi

The inclusion of two councillors who had participated in School Board meetings discussing objections to the pursuer's licence created a reasonable suspicion of bias and was contrary to natural justice. The committee's decision was therefore procedurally flawed and must be set aside and remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted committee.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; committee's decision reversed to the extent of remitting for reconsideration by a differently constituted committee.

Orders

  • The decision of 2 December 2004 granting the licence subject to an exclusion zone is reversed to the extent of remitting the case to the defenders for reconsideration by a committee excluding Councillors Sangster and Liston, before the beginning of the Autumn school term 2005.
  • Hearing on expenses fixed for 17 August 2005 at 9.45am.