BRIAN RIZZA FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS IN RELATION TO HIGH HEDGE NOTICE HHA-270-7 [2020] ScotCS CSOH_22 (27 February 2020)

BRIAN RIZZA FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS IN RELATION TO HIGH HEDGE NOTICE HHA-270-7 [2020] ScotCS CSOH_22 (27 February 2020)

The court held that the reference to 'row' in section 1(1)(a) of the High Hedges (Scotland) Act 2013 includes the plural, by operation of section 22 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, and there is nothing in the context of the 2013 Act to require otherwise. The reporter did not err in law by considering multiple rows together as forming a hedge, nor did she fail to consider relevant considerations or act irrationally. The petitioner's arguments were rejected and the reporter's decision was upheld.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_22
Parties
Petitioner: Brian Rizza; Respondent: Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session, Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, High Hedges (scotland) Act 2013, Judicial Review, Planning and Environmental Law
Administrative Law Property Law Statutory Interpretation High Hedges (scotland) Act 2013 Judicial Review Planning and Environmental Law

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

Brian Rizza

Petitioner

Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Outer House, Court of Session, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trees in question constitute a 'high hedge' under section 1 of the High Hedges (Scotland) Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the reporter erred in law in interpreting 'row' in section 1(1)(a) to include multiple rows
  3. 3 Whether the reporter failed to consider relevant considerations or took into account irrelevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the reference to 'row' in section 1(1)(a) of the High Hedges (Scotland) Act 2013 includes the plural, by operation of section 22 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, and there is nothing in the context of the 2013 Act to require otherwise. The reporter did not err in law by considering multiple rows together as forming a hedge, nor did she fail to consider relevant considerations or act irrationally. The petitioner's arguments were rejected and the reporter's decision was upheld.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Refusal to grant the orders sought in the petition