MOHAMMED SAFDAR & A & N BROTHERS (A PARTNERSHIP) v. FALKIRK COUNCIL [2013] ScotSC 35 (28 March 2013)

MOHAMMED SAFDAR & A & N BROTHERS (A PARTNERSHIP) v. FALKIRK COUNCIL [2013] ScotSC 35 (28 March 2013)

The Sheriff found that the appeal involved a true lis between the parties, requiring adjudication on questions of law and fact, and thus was an exercise of judicial capacity. The general rule that expenses follow success applied, and there was no reason to depart from it as the pursuers failed to establish their grounds of appeal.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 35
Parties
Pursuer: Mohammed Safdar; Pursuer: A & N Brothers (a partnership); Defender: Falkirk Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 80(3) of Environmental Protection Act 1990 (summary Application) / Post Judgment, Determination of Expenses
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; expenses awarded to defenders.
Legal Topics
Statutory Nuisance, Abatement Notice, Appeals Procedure, Judicial Vs Administrative Capacity, Award of Expenses
Environmental Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Statutory Nuisance Abatement Notice Appeals Procedure Judicial Vs Administrative Capacity Award of Expenses

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Safdar

Pursuer

A & N Brothers (a partnership)

Pursuer

Falkirk Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 80(3) of Environmental Protection Act 1990 (summary Application) / Post Judgment, Determination of Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sheriff was acting in a judicial or administrative capacity in determining the appeal under section 80(3) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether expenses should follow success or be modified in the circumstances of the case

Ratio Decidendi

The Sheriff found that the appeal involved a true lis between the parties, requiring adjudication on questions of law and fact, and thus was an exercise of judicial capacity. The general rule that expenses follow success applied, and there was no reason to depart from it as the pursuers failed to establish their grounds of appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; expenses awarded to defenders.

Orders

  • Pursuers found liable to defenders in the expenses of the appeal.
  • Account of expenses to be lodged and remitted to the auditor of court to tax and report.