Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee [2001] ScotCS 168 (28 June 2001)

Fullarton Computer Industries Ltd v Central Arbitration Committee [2001] ScotCS 168 (28 June 2001)

The Central Arbitration Committee did not unlawfully delegate its decision-making, acted within its discretion, and did not breach principles of natural justice or provide flawed reasoning. The process, though not perfect, did not result in substantive unfairness or irrationality. The petitioner's complaints were either overtaken by events or not material to the lawfulness of the decisions.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 168
Parties
Pursuer/petitioner: Fullarton Computer Industries Limited; Defender/respondent: Central Arbitration Committee; Interested Party: Iron and Steel Trades Confederation (ISTC)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Trade Union Recognition, Collective Bargaining, Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Adequacy of Reasons, Delegation of Decision Making, Industrial Relations
Employment Law Administrative Law Trade Union Recognition Collective Bargaining Judicial Review Natural Justice Adequacy of Reasons Delegation of Decision Making +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fullarton Computer Industries Limited

Pursuer/petitioner

Central Arbitration Committee

Defender/respondent

Iron and Steel Trades Confederation (ISTC)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Central Arbitration Committee's decisions on the relevant date, majority, and ballot were lawful and procedurally fair
  2. 2 Whether the panel unlawfully delegated its decision-making to the case manager
  3. 3 Whether the process breached principles of natural justice or failed to provide adequate reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The Central Arbitration Committee did not unlawfully delegate its decision-making, acted within its discretion, and did not breach principles of natural justice or provide flawed reasoning. The process, though not perfect, did not result in substantive unfairness or irrationality. The petitioner's complaints were either overtaken by events or not material to the lawfulness of the decisions.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Second and third pleas-in-law for the respondent sustained
  • Petition dismissed