Hendrick v House & Anor [2014] ScotCS CSIH_22 (19 February 2014)

Hendrick v House & Anor [2014] ScotCS CSIH_22 (19 February 2014)

The plea of mora, taciturnity and acquiescence does not require prejudice in every case; acquiescence inferred from the petitioner’s 22 months of silence and inaction after the PAT decision objectively bars the challenge to disciplinary decisions.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_22
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: James Hendrick; First Respondent: Stephen House, QPM, Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police; Second Respondent: Police Appeals Tribunal (Scotland)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence, Judicial Review, Delay and Personal Bar, Disciplinary Procedure, Standard of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence
Administrative Law Employment Law Police Disciplinary Proceedings Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence Judicial Review Delay and Personal Bar Disciplinary Procedure Standard of Proof +1 more

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

Parties

James Hendrick

Petitioner and Reclaimer

Stephen House, QPM, Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police

First Respondent

Police Appeals Tribunal (Scotland)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion (appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is prejudice a necessary element for a successful plea of mora, taciturnity and acquiescence in judicial review?
  2. 2 Did the petitioner’s conduct amount to mora, taciturnity and acquiescence barring the challenge to disciplinary decisions?

Ratio Decidendi

The plea of mora, taciturnity and acquiescence does not require prejudice in every case; acquiescence inferred from the petitioner’s 22 months of silence and inaction after the PAT decision objectively bars the challenge to disciplinary decisions.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; petition dismissed

Orders

  • Adhere to interlocutor of Lord Ordinary dated 26 April 2013 dismissing the petition.
  • Continue the question of expenses for further submissions.