Hussain v Glasgow City Council [2017] ScotCS CSOH_1 (05 January 2017)

Hussain v Glasgow City Council [2017] ScotCS CSOH_1 (05 January 2017)

The court held that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 does not prescribe an exhaustive list of conditions that may be imposed by a local authority when granting assistance. Section 71(4) confers a broad discretionary power to impose such terms as the authority thinks fit, subject only to any express statutory limitations. The pre-payment condition was not inconsistent with the Act or the respondent's statement of assistance, was reasonable, and served a legitimate purpose related to the policy objectives of the Act. Therefore, the condition was not ultra vires.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_1
Parties
Petitioner: Masroor Hussain; Respondent: Glasgow City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Local Authority Powers, Housing Grants, Ultra Vires, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Housing Law Statutory Interpretation Local Authority Powers Housing Grants Ultra Vires Judicial Review

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masroor Hussain

Petitioner

Glasgow City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pre-payment condition imposed by Glasgow City Council for grant assistance was ultra vires under Part 2 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 does not prescribe an exhaustive list of conditions that may be imposed by a local authority when granting assistance. Section 71(4) confers a broad discretionary power to impose such terms as the authority thinks fit, subject only to any express statutory limitations. The pre-payment condition was not inconsistent with the Act or the respondent's statement of assistance, was reasonable, and served a legitimate purpose related to the policy objectives of the Act. Therefore, the condition was not ultra vires.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Petitioner's first and second pleas in law repelled
  • Respondent's third plea in law sustained