Carroll v Scottish Borders Council [2014] ScotCS CSOH_30 (12 July 2013)

Carroll v Scottish Borders Council [2014] ScotCS CSOH_30 (12 July 2013)

A protective expenses order was justified because the appellant had a clear interest in the proceedings, the case had a real prospect of success, and the likely expenses would be prohibitively expensive for her without such an order. The statutory criteria under Rule 58A were met, and the order was necessary to comply with EU law obligations to ensure access to justice in environmental matters is not prohibitively expensive.

Citation
[2014] CSIH 30
Parties
Appellant: Sally Carroll; Respondent: Scottish Borders Council; Interested Party: Firm of SR Findlay
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997 / Application for Protective Expenses Order Prior to Substantive Hearing
Outcome
protective expenses order granted; interim suspension of planning decision granted; remit to Outer House for substantive hearing
Legal Topics
Protective Expenses Orders, Judicial Review, Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making, Planning Permission, EU Directives Implementation
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law EU Law Protective Expenses Orders Judicial Review Public Participation in Environmental Decision Making Planning Permission +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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sally Carroll

Appellant

Scottish Borders Council

Respondent

Firm of SR Findlay

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (scotland) Act 1997 / Application for Protective Expenses Order Prior to Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective expenses order should be granted under Rule of Court 58A in an environmental planning appeal
  2. 2 Interpretation and application of 'prohibitively expensive' under Directive 2011/92/EU and Rule 58A
  3. 3 Criteria for sufficient interest and real prospect of success in protective expenses order applications

Ratio Decidendi

A protective expenses order was justified because the appellant had a clear interest in the proceedings, the case had a real prospect of success, and the likely expenses would be prohibitively expensive for her without such an order. The statutory criteria under Rule 58A were met, and the order was necessary to comply with EU law obligations to ensure access to justice in environmental matters is not prohibitively expensive.

Court Disposition

protective expenses order granted; interim suspension of planning decision granted; remit to Outer House for substantive hearing

Orders

  • Protective expenses order limiting appellant's liability to respondent and interested party to £5,000 cumulative.
  • Protective expenses order limiting respondent's and interested party's liability to appellant to £30,000 cumulative.