NAHG, Re Judicial Review [2013] ScotCS CSOH_88 (31 May 2013)

NAHG, Re Judicial Review [2013] ScotCS CSOH_88 (31 May 2013)

Judicial review is competent in this case because the disciplinary actions were taken by persons with adverse interests, outside the contractual powers, and with a real risk of bias. The petitioner has established a prima facie case for interim suspension and interdict, as the balance of convenience favours preventing further harm pending a full hearing.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_88
Parties
Petitioner: N A H G; Respondent: Andrew Watson; Respondent: Shane Watson; Respondent: Richard Bagley; Respondent: Jeff Prowse; Respondent: Garry Russell; Interested Party: Allan Leddra; Interested Party: BLUK; Interested Party: GROUP
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Interim Orders, Pre First Hearing
Outcome
Interim suspension and interdict granted in favour of the petitioner
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Procedures, Director Dismissal, Bias, Corporate Governance, Remedies in Contract, Public Vs Private Law Review
Employment Law Company Law Judicial Review Disciplinary Procedures Director Dismissal Bias Corporate Governance Remedies in Contract +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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N A H G

Petitioner

Andrew Watson

Respondent

Shane Watson

Respondent

Richard Bagley

Respondent

Jeff Prowse

Respondent

Garry Russell

Respondent

Allan Leddra

Interested Party

BLUK

Interested Party

GROUP

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Interim Orders, Pre First Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disciplinary process and dismissal of the petitioner as director were ultra vires and void
  2. 2 Whether judicial review is competent in a private contractual dispute involving alleged bias and lack of independent third party
  3. 3 Whether interim suspension and interdict should be granted to prevent further disciplinary or appeal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Judicial review is competent in this case because the disciplinary actions were taken by persons with adverse interests, outside the contractual powers, and with a real risk of bias. The petitioner has established a prima facie case for interim suspension and interdict, as the balance of convenience favours preventing further harm pending a full hearing.

Court Disposition

Interim suspension and interdict granted in favour of the petitioner

Orders

  • Suspension ad interim of the decisions to suspend the petitioner, to convene the disciplinary hearing, and to dismiss the petitioner
  • Interdict ad interim against constituting any appeal committee or conducting any appeal hearing in relation to the petitioner