Docherty, Re Application For Judicial Review [2000] ScotCS 210 (21 July 2000)

Docherty, Re Application For Judicial Review [2000] ScotCS 210 (21 July 2000)

The letter of 29 July 1998 was not a decision susceptible to judicial review but merely a notification of policy; the Guidance Note did not create a legitimate expectation that a partner of a corporate applicant could remain on the waiting list; and the Council's requirement was not unreasonable or otherwise open to challenge.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 210
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: Darren Docherty; Respondents: The City of Edinburgh Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Dismissal at First Instance
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Legitimate Expectation, Licensing, Local Authority Policy, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Administrative Law Local Government Law Judicial Review Legitimate Expectation Licensing Local Authority Policy Wednesbury Unreasonableness

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Darren Docherty

Petitioner and Reclaimer

The City of Edinburgh Council

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal) From Dismissal at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's letter of 29 July 1998 constituted a reviewable decision
  2. 2 Whether the Council's Guidance Note created a legitimate expectation that a partner of a corporate applicant could remain on the waiting list
  3. 3 Whether it was unreasonable for the Council to require removal from the waiting list as a precondition for granting a corporate licence

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 29 July 1998 was not a decision susceptible to judicial review but merely a notification of policy; the Guidance Note did not create a legitimate expectation that a partner of a corporate applicant could remain on the waiting list; and the Council's requirement was not unreasonable or otherwise open to challenge.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary adhered to