Anderson v Shetland Islands Council & Anor [2010] ScotCS CSIH_15 (16 February 2010)

Anderson v Shetland Islands Council & Anor [2010] ScotCS CSIH_15 (16 February 2010)

The petitioner's averments against the respondents are irrelevant because the statutory framework permits the respondents' actions regarding drainage, the petitioner lacks title or interest to challenge inter-authority agreements, and the remedies sought are not competent in judicial review. No relevant case for damages or specific performance is disclosed.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_15
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: Mrs Patricia Anderson; First Respondents: Shetland Islands Council; Second Respondents: Scottish Water; Interested Third Party: Nicolson Bros
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Dismissal of Petition
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Statutory Duties of Roads and Sewerage Authorities, Surface Water Drainage, Planning Authority Obligations, Judicial Review Relevance, Damages for Property Damage
Administrative Law Property Law Local Government Law Statutory Duties of Roads and Sewerage Authorities Surface Water Drainage Planning Authority Obligations Judicial Review Relevance Damages for Property Damage

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Patricia Anderson

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Shetland Islands Council

First Respondents

Scottish Water

Second Respondents

Nicolson Bros

Interested Third Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Dismissal of Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents breached statutory duties regarding drainage and sewerage
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner has title and interest to challenge agreements or policies regarding drainage
  3. 3 Whether the remedies sought are competent in judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner's averments against the respondents are irrelevant because the statutory framework permits the respondents' actions regarding drainage, the petitioner lacks title or interest to challenge inter-authority agreements, and the remedies sought are not competent in judicial review. No relevant case for damages or specific performance is disclosed.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to.