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 under Rule of Court 58A is justified where the proceedings fall within the scope of Directive 2011/92/EU, the applicant has sufficient interest, the proceedings have a real prospect of success, and without the order, the proceedings would be prohibitively expensive for the applicant.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSOH_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 / Determination of Motion for Protective Expenses Order
Outcome
protective expenses order granted
Legal Topics
Protective Expenses Orders, Judicial Review, Public Participation, Planning Permission, EU Law Implementation
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Protective Expenses Orders Judicial Review Public Participation Planning Permission EU Law Implementation

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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 / Determination of Motion for Protective Expenses Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a protective expenses order under Rule of Court 58A should be granted in an environmental appeal
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings are prohibitively expensive for the applicant
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has sufficient interest

Ratio Decidendi

A protective expenses order under Rule of Court 58A is justified where the proceedings fall within the scope of Directive 2011/92/EU, the applicant has sufficient interest, the proceedings have a real prospect of success, and without the order, the proceedings would be prohibitively expensive for the applicant.

Court Disposition

protective expenses order granted

Orders

  • Appellant's liability in expenses to respondent and interested party limited to £5,000 cumulative.
  • Respondent's and interested party's liability in expenses to appellant limited to £30,000.