Cooper, Re Application for Judicial Review [2011] ScotCS CSIH_36 (25 May 2011)

Cooper, Re Application for Judicial Review [2011] ScotCS CSIH_36 (25 May 2011)

The respondents could not lawfully base the revocation of the pilot's authorisation on incidents that had not been investigated in accordance with the disciplinary procedures set out in the Code of Practice. The notice of intention to revoke failed to provide adequate reasons as required by statute and contract, as it did not specify the respects in which the pilot was alleged to be incompetent in relation to each incident. The Lord Ordinary erred in holding the notice sufficient and in refusing reduction of the notice.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_36
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: Ian J Cooper; Respondent: Forth Ports plc
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; reduction of notice of intention to revoke authorisation granted.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review of Disciplinary Procedures, Pilotage Act 1987, Natural Justice, Procedural Fairness, Adequacy of Reasons, Employment Discipline
Administrative Law Employment Law Maritime Law Judicial Review of Disciplinary Procedures Pilotage Act 1987 Natural Justice Procedural Fairness Adequacy of Reasons +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian J Cooper

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Forth Ports plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice of intention to revoke the pilot's authorisation complied with statutory and contractual requirements for reasons.
  2. 2 Whether incidents not investigated under the Code of Practice could be relied upon as grounds for revocation.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary procedures under the Code of Practice and Pilotage Act 1987 were properly followed.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents could not lawfully base the revocation of the pilot's authorisation on incidents that had not been investigated in accordance with the disciplinary procedures set out in the Code of Practice. The notice of intention to revoke failed to provide adequate reasons as required by statute and contract, as it did not specify the respects in which the pilot was alleged to be incompetent in relation to each incident. The Lord Ordinary erred in holding the notice sufficient and in refusing reduction of the notice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; reduction of notice of intention to revoke authorisation granted.

Orders

  • Reduction of the respondents' notice of intention to revoke the reclaimer's authorisation as a pilot dated 29 April 2009.
  • Case remitted for further procedure if necessary.