TARVES HEALTH Ltd FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF GRAMPIAN HEALTH BOARD [2014] ScotCS CSOH_138 (09 September 2014)

TARVES HEALTH Ltd FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF GRAMPIAN HEALTH BOARD [2014] ScotCS CSOH_138 (09 September 2014)

The Board's decision was unlawful because it misapplied paragraph 44 by authorising dispensing to all Pitmedden patients when only a proportion would have serious difficulty, and because the review and decision-making processes were procedurally unfair to the petitioners, who were not properly consulted or informed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_138
Parties
Petitioner: Tarves Health Limited; Respondent: Grampian Health Board
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
09 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion
Outcome
Petition sustained in part; declarator pronounced that the decision was unlawful; case continued by order for further procedure; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation, Consultation Requirements, Ultra Vires, Health Services Regulation
Administrative Law Health Law Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Statutory Interpretation Consultation Requirements Ultra Vires Health Services Regulation

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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarves Health Limited

Petitioner

Grampian Health Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session – Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Grampian Health Board's decision of 4 December 2012 authorising Haddo Medical Group to provide dispensing services to all registered patients in Pitmedden was lawful under paragraph 44 of the 2004 Regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the decision-making and consultation process was procedurally fair to the petitioners.
  3. 3 Whether the petitioners' challenge was barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's decision was unlawful because it misapplied paragraph 44 by authorising dispensing to all Pitmedden patients when only a proportion would have serious difficulty, and because the review and decision-making processes were procedurally unfair to the petitioners, who were not properly consulted or informed of new material affecting their interests.

Court Disposition

Petition sustained in part; declarator pronounced that the decision was unlawful; case continued by order for further procedure; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Sustain petitioners’ second plea-in-law.
  • Repel respondents’ first to fifth pleas-in-law.