McGinty v The Scottish Ministers [2013] ScotCS CSIH_78 (13 September 2013)

McGinty v The Scottish Ministers [2013] ScotCS CSIH_78 (13 September 2013)

The court held that the petitioner had sufficient standing to bring the judicial review in light of recent Supreme Court authority, but found that the consultation process, including publication in the Edinburgh Gazette and on the website, met the statutory requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the SEA Directive. The consultation period and environmental assessment were found adequate. The protective expenses order was not manifestly unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeal was refused.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSIH_78
Parties
Petitioner and Reclaimer: Marco McGinty; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Outer House to Inner House
Outcome
appeal refused; interlocutors of Lord Brailsford and Lady Dorrian adhered to
Legal Topics
Standing in Judicial Review, Public Consultation Requirements, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Protective Expenses Orders, Statutory Interpretation, EU Law Transposition
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Public Law Standing in Judicial Review Public Consultation Requirements Strategic Environmental Assessment Protective Expenses Orders +2 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco McGinty

Petitioner and Reclaimer

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Outer House to Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner had standing to bring the judicial review (title and interest)
  2. 2 Whether the consultation process for the designation of the Hunterston project as a national development complied with statutory and EU requirements
  3. 3 Whether publication in the Edinburgh Gazette constituted adequate notice to the public under the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the petitioner had sufficient standing to bring the judicial review in light of recent Supreme Court authority, but found that the consultation process, including publication in the Edinburgh Gazette and on the website, met the statutory requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the SEA Directive. The consultation period and environmental assessment were found adequate. The protective expenses order was not manifestly unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

appeal refused; interlocutors of Lord Brailsford and Lady Dorrian adhered to

Orders

  • Petition for reduction of NPF2 insofar as it designates Hunterston as a national development refused
  • Protective expenses order capping liability at £30,000 upheld