Sustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers & Anor [2013] ScotCS CSIH_116 (03 December 2013)

Sustainable Shetland v The Scottish Ministers & Anor [2013] ScotCS CSIH_116 (03 December 2013)

Applicants Trump Organization and AES K2 Ltd are not 'directly affected' by the outcome of the Shetland windfarm consent and thus lack standing to intervene under RCS 58.8(2). Trump’s application under RCS 58.8A fails as their interest is private, not public. RSPB’s intervention is refused as they had opportunity to participate earlier and their input is not likely to assist the court at this stage.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_116
Parties
Petitioner and Respondent: Sustainable Shetland; Reclaimer: The Scottish Ministers; Interested Party: Viking Energy Partnership; Applicant to Intervene: Trump Organization LLC and others; Applicant to Intervene: AES K2 Ltd and others; Applicant to Intervene: RSPB; Amicus Curiae: The Amicus Curiae (Moynihan QC)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
All motions to compear and/or intervene refused.
Legal Topics
Standing in Judicial Review, Intervention in Judicial Proceedings, Electricity Act 1989 Consent, Birds Directive Interpretation, Windfarm Development Consent
Administrative Law Environmental Law Energy Law Standing in Judicial Review Intervention in Judicial Proceedings Electricity Act 1989 Consent Birds Directive Interpretation Windfarm Development Consent

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sustainable Shetland

Petitioner and Respondent

The Scottish Ministers

Reclaimer

Viking Energy Partnership

Interested Party

Trump Organization LLC and others

Applicant to Intervene

AES K2 Ltd and others

Applicant to Intervene

RSPB

Applicant to Intervene

The Amicus Curiae (Moynihan QC)

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants have standing to intervene or compear in judicial review proceedings
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'directly affected' under RCS 58.8(2)
  3. 3 Public interest intervention under RCS 58.8A

Ratio Decidendi

Applicants Trump Organization and AES K2 Ltd are not 'directly affected' by the outcome of the Shetland windfarm consent and thus lack standing to intervene under RCS 58.8(2). Trump’s application under RCS 58.8A fails as their interest is private, not public. RSPB’s intervention is refused as they had opportunity to participate earlier and their input is not likely to assist the court at this stage.

Court Disposition

All motions to compear and/or intervene refused.

Orders

  • Refused applications from Trump Organization, AES K2 Ltd and others, and RSPB to compear or intervene.