JAMES HENDRICK AGAINST (1) STEPHEN HOUSE, QPM, CHIEF CONSTABLE, STRATHCLYDE POLICE and (2) THE POLICE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) [2014] ScotCS CSIH_75 (09 September 2014)

JAMES HENDRICK AGAINST (1) STEPHEN HOUSE, QPM, CHIEF CONSTABLE, STRATHCLYDE POLICE and (2) THE POLICE APPEALS TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) [2014] ScotCS CSIH_75 (09 September 2014)

The second respondents were properly granted leave to enter the process and entitled to separate representation due to their statutory independence and direct interest in the issues raised. The Lord Ordinary did not err in awarding expenses to both respondents, and the reclaiming motion was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_75
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: James Hendrick; First Respondent: Stephen House, QPM, Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police; Second Respondent: The Police Appeals Tribunal (Scotland)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Award of Expenses
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 4 June 2013 adhered to
Legal Topics
Expenses in Judicial Review, Competence of Tribunal Representation, Separate Legal Representation, Disciplinary Proceedings, Standard of Proof, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
Administrative Law Police Law Judicial Review Expenses in Judicial Review Competence of Tribunal Representation Separate Legal Representation Disciplinary Proceedings Standard of Proof +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hendrick

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Stephen House, QPM, Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police

First Respondent

The Police Appeals Tribunal (Scotland)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Award of Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Ordinary erred in awarding expenses to the second respondents in judicial review proceedings
  2. 2 Competence of the Police Appeals Tribunal entering appearance and being separately represented
  3. 3 Whether respondents should have had joint representation given similar interests

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondents were properly granted leave to enter the process and entitled to separate representation due to their statutory independence and direct interest in the issues raised. The Lord Ordinary did not err in awarding expenses to both respondents, and the reclaiming motion was refused.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of 4 June 2013 adhered to

Orders

  • Second respondents entitled to expenses for first hearing
  • Petitioner liable for expenses to both respondents