McGinty v The Scottish Ministers [2011] ScotCS CSOH_163 (04 October 2011)

McGinty v The Scottish Ministers [2011] ScotCS CSOH_163 (04 October 2011)

The petitioner did not have a real and practical interest to sue, as his connection to the site was remote and intermittent; the petition was also barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence due to delay and prejudice to good administration; the respondents complied with statutory and EU requirements for consultation and environmental assessment.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_163
Parties
Petitioner: Marco McGinty; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing, Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Title and Interest to Sue, Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence, Public Consultation, Strategic Environmental Assessment, National Planning Framework
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Title and Interest to Sue Mora, Taciturnity and Acquiescence Public Consultation Strategic Environmental Assessment National Planning Framework

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marco McGinty

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing, Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner has title and interest to sue
  2. 2 Whether the petition is barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence
  3. 3 Whether the respondents complied with statutory and EU requirements for public consultation and environmental assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner did not have a real and practical interest to sue, as his connection to the site was remote and intermittent; the petition was also barred by mora, taciturnity and acquiescence due to delay and prejudice to good administration; the respondents complied with statutory and EU requirements for consultation and environmental assessment.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • respondents' first and third pleas-in-law upheld
  • petition dismissed