GG, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 185 (11 July 2001)

GG, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 185 (11 July 2001)

The Council's policy did not unlawfully fetter discretion, as it allowed for exceptions in exceptional circumstances. The Council considered the petitioner's individual circumstances and lawfully exercised its discretion in refusing to fund transport. The refusal was not irrational, given the existence of an appropriate nominated school within the Council's area and the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 185
Parties
Petitioner: G. G.; Respondent: Glasgow City Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Discretionary Powers, Transport Policy, Placing Requests, Special Educational Needs, Judicial Review, Irrationality (wednesbury)
Administrative Law Education Law Discretionary Powers Transport Policy Placing Requests Special Educational Needs Judicial Review Irrationality (wednesbury)

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. G.

Petitioner

Glasgow City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Glasgow City Council's policy not to fund transport for pupils attending schools on placing requests unlawfully fetters discretion
  2. 2 Whether the Council considered individual circumstances in refusing transport funding
  3. 3 Whether consideration of alternative suitable schools was an irrelevant factor

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's policy did not unlawfully fetter discretion, as it allowed for exceptions in exceptional circumstances. The Council considered the petitioner's individual circumstances and lawfully exercised its discretion in refusing to fund transport. The refusal was not irrational, given the existence of an appropriate nominated school within the Council's area and the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Court Disposition

petition refused