MacAuley v. Advocate General for Scotland [2002] ScotCS 329 (08 November 2002)

MacAuley v. Advocate General for Scotland [2002] ScotCS 329 (08 November 2002)

Lieutenant Colonel Parrott did not have, and did not claim to have, the authority to reinstate the pursuer in service; his letter expressing support for reinstatement was not determinative and could not effect reinstatement. The proper authority for such redress lay higher in the military hierarchy. The pursuer's reliance on the letter as constituting reinstatement was misconceived, and the action was irrelevant.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 329
Parties
Pursuer: Gary G. MacAuley; Defender: Dr M. Lynda Clark, Q.C., M.P., The Advocate General for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Judicial Review / Declarator / Outer House, Court of Session Opinion on Relevancy, Dismissal Without Further Inquiry
Outcome
Action dismissed as irrelevant; first plea-in-law for the defender upheld.
Legal Topics
Redress of Complaint, Army Discharge Procedures, Jurisdiction of Military Officers, Declarator, Procedural Irregularity
Administrative Law Military Law Redress of Complaint Army Discharge Procedures Jurisdiction of Military Officers Declarator Procedural Irregularity

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary G. MacAuley

Pursuer

Dr M. Lynda Clark, Q.C., M.P., The Advocate General for Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Judicial Review / Declarator / Outer House, Court of Session Opinion on Relevancy, Dismissal Without Further Inquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lieutenant Colonel Parrott's letter of 29 July 1998 constituted a binding decision reinstating the pursuer in military service
  2. 2 Whether Lieutenant Colonel Parrott had authority to grant redress by reinstatement

Ratio Decidendi

Lieutenant Colonel Parrott did not have, and did not claim to have, the authority to reinstate the pursuer in service; his letter expressing support for reinstatement was not determinative and could not effect reinstatement. The proper authority for such redress lay higher in the military hierarchy. The pursuer's reliance on the letter as constituting reinstatement was misconceived, and the action was irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed as irrelevant; first plea-in-law for the defender upheld.

Orders

  • Action dismissed.