FRIENDS OF LOCH ETIVE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A RAINBOW TROUT FARM IN LOCH ETIVE [2014] ScotCS CSOH_116 (22 July 2014)

FRIENDS OF LOCH ETIVE FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A RAINBOW TROUT FARM IN LOCH ETIVE [2014] ScotCS CSOH_116 (22 July 2014)

The application for a protective expenses order was refused because the petitioner is controlled and funded by an individual with significant resources, and there was insufficient evidence that the petitioner could not reasonably proceed without such an order.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_116
Parties
Petitioner: Friends of Loch Etive; Respondent: Argyll and Bute Council; Interested Party: Dawnfresh Farming Ltd (represented by J Findlay)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Protective Expenses Order
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Protective Expenses Order, Judicial Review, Standing of Environmental Organisations, Planning Permission
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Protective Expenses Order Judicial Review Standing of Environmental Organisations Planning Permission

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

Parties

Friends of Loch Etive

Petitioner

Argyll and Bute Council

Respondent

Dawnfresh Farming Ltd (represented by J Findlay)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Protective Expenses Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a protective expenses order under rule 58A.4
  2. 2 Whether the financial circumstances of the petitioner and its members justify the order

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a protective expenses order was refused because the petitioner is controlled and funded by an individual with significant resources, and there was insufficient evidence that the petitioner could not reasonably proceed without such an order.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for protective expenses order refused.