Bell v. East Renfrewshire Council & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSIH_33 (31 May 2006)

Bell v. East Renfrewshire Council & Ors [2006] ScotCS CSIH_33 (31 May 2006)

The court held that the temporary judge's decision on expenses was not unreasonable and fell within the proper exercise of judicial discretion, particularly in light of the guidance from Bolton Metropolitan District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSIH_33
Parties
Appellant: Ashley Bell; First Respondent: East Renfrewshire Council; Second Respondent: George Wimpey UK Ltd; Third Respondent: Carvill (Scotland) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Under Section 238 of the Town & Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997 / Appeal Against Interlocutor on Expenses
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused
Legal Topics
Expenses of Process, Judicial Discretion, Planning Policy Validity
Administrative Law Planning Law Civil Procedure Expenses of Process Judicial Discretion Planning Policy Validity

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashley Bell

Appellant

East Renfrewshire Council

First Respondent

George Wimpey UK Ltd

Second Respondent

Carvill (Scotland) Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Under Section 238 of the Town & Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997 / Appeal Against Interlocutor on Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the temporary judge erred in awarding expenses to the second and third respondents up to a certain date
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of discretion in awarding expenses was unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the temporary judge's decision on expenses was not unreasonable and fell within the proper exercise of judicial discretion, particularly in light of the guidance from Bolton Metropolitan District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused

Orders

  • The reclaiming motion by the second respondent is refused.