PETITION OF JON SHARP AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_74 (23 July 2020)

PETITION OF JON SHARP AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2020] ScotCS CSOH_74 (23 July 2020)

The statements by Cabinet Secretaries did not constitute a clear, unambiguous, and unconditional promise to pay full grants per property; therefore, no legitimate expectation arose. The Scottish Ministers' policy restricting grants for second and subsequent properties was not irrational, as reasons provided were logical and based on equitable distribution of finite resources. The petitioner's claim fails on both legitimate expectation and rationality grounds.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_74
Parties
Petitioner: Jon Sharp; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Rationality, COVID 19 Business Support, Barnett Formula, Grant Allocation
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Legitimate Expectation Rationality COVID 19 Business Support Barnett Formula Grant Allocation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jon Sharp

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Scottish Ministers' policy restricting grants for second and subsequent properties is unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of receiving full grants for all properties
  3. 3 Whether the policy is irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The statements by Cabinet Secretaries did not constitute a clear, unambiguous, and unconditional promise to pay full grants per property; therefore, no legitimate expectation arose. The Scottish Ministers' policy restricting grants for second and subsequent properties was not irrational, as reasons provided were logical and based on equitable distribution of finite resources. The petitioner's claim fails on both legitimate expectation and rationality grounds.

Court Disposition

petition refused

Orders

  • respondents’ first and second pleas-in-law sustained
  • petitioner’s pleas-in-law repelled