Prior v Scottish Ministers
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lady Carmichael |
| Judgment Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] CSIH 36 |
| Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No 33 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House) |
[2020] CSIH 36
First Division
Lady Carmichael
Adair v David Colville & Sons Ltd 1926 SC (HL) 51; 1926 SLT 590
Advocate (Lord) v Johnston 1983 SLT 290
Altay v Turkey (11236/09) [2019] ECHR 276; (2020) 70 EHRR 4
Ashingdane v UK (8225/78) [1985] ECHR 8; (1985) 7 EHRR 528
Bain v HLS McConnell Ltd 1991 SLT 691
Bell v Fiddes 1996 SLT 51; 1995 SCLR 1123
Bhamjee v Forsdick [2003] EWCA Civ 1113; [2004] 1 WLR 88; [2003] CP Rep 67; [2003] BPIR 1252
Brown v Hamilton District Council 1983 SC (HL) 1; 1983 SLT 397
Campbell v Glasgow Housing Association Ltd [2011] CSOH 55; 2011 Hous LR 7; 2011 GWD 13–306
Christian Institute v Lord Advocate [2016] UKSC 51; 2017 SC (UKSC) 29; 2016 SLT 805; 2016 SCLR 448; [2016] HRLR 19; [2016] ELR 474; 19 CCL Rep 422
Davidson v Scottish Ministers (No 2) 2003 SC 103; 2002 SLT 1231
Delcourt v Belgium (2689/165) [1970] ECHR 1; (1979–80) 1 EHRR 355
Dinsmore v Scottish Ministers [2019] CSOH 18; 2019 GWD 10–128
Gibson's Trs, Petrs 1933 SC 190; 1933 SLT 166
Glasgow Magdalene Institution, Petrs 1964 SC 227; 1964 SLT 184
Golder v UK (4451/70) [1975] ECHR 1; (1979–80) 1 EHRR 524
H v UK (11559/85) (1985) 45 DR 281
Hansen v Norway (15319/09) [2014] ECHR 1018; (2014) 39 BHRC 89
Helow v Advocate General for Scotland [2007] CSIH 5; 2007 SC 303; 2007 SLT 201; 2007 SCLR 219
Hepburn v Royal Alexandria Hospital NHS Trust [2010] CSIH 71; 2011 SC 20; 2010 SLT 1071
Jussila v Finland (73053/01) [2006] ECHR 996; (2007) 45 EHRR 39; (2006) 9 ITL Rep 662; [2009] STC 29
King v East Ayrshire Council 1998 SC 182; 1998 SLT 1287
McLeod v Prestige Finance Ltd [2016] CSIH 87; 2016 GWD 39–690
Martin v UK 1999 SCCR 941
Meechan v Procurator Fiscal, Airdrie [2019] HCJAC 13; 2019 SLT 441
Moss' Empires Ltd v Assessor for Glasgow 1917 SC (HL) 1; 1916 2 SLT 215
Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v Portugal (55391/13) [2018] ECHR 912
Pönkä v Estonia (64160/11) [2016] ECHR 961
Pursiheimo v Finland (57795/00) [2003] ECHR 727; (2004) 38 EHRR CD 138
R v Dunn [2010] EWCA Crim 1823; [2011] 1 WLR 958; [2010] 2 Cr App R 30; [2011] Crim LR 229
R (on the application of Black) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 81; [2018] AC 215; [2018] 2 WLR 123; [2018] 2 All ER 212; 160 BMLR 1; The Times, 10 January 2018
R (on the application of Detention Action) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2015] EWCA Civ 840; [2015] 1 WLR 5341; [2016] 3 All ER 626; [2015] Imm AR 1349; [2016] INLR 79
R (on the application of MD (Afghanistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 194; [2012] 1 WLR 2422; [2012] CP Rep 24
R (on the application of Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income Tax [2002] UKHL 21; [2003] 1 AC 563; [2002] 2 WLR 1299; [2002] 3 All ER 1; [2002] STC 786; [2002] HRLR 42; 74 TC 511; [2002] BTC 223; 4 ITL Rep 809; [2002] STI 806; 99 (25) LSG 35; 146 SJLB 126; [2002] NPC 70; The Times, 20 May 2002; The Independent, 12 May 2002
R (on the application of Siddiqui) v Lord Chancellor [2019] EWCA Civ 1040
R (on the application of Wasif) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 82; [2016] 1 WLR 2793; [2016] Imm AR 585; [2016] INLR 697
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Gillies 1987 SLT 54
Saccoccia v Austria (69917/01) [2008] ECHR 1734; (2010) 50 EHRR 11
Sengupta v Holmes [2002] EWCA Civ 1104
Taylor v Scottish Ministers [2019] CSIH 2; 2019 SLT 288; [2019] LLR 637
Toal v HM Advocate [2012] HCJAC 123; 2012 SCCR 735; 2012 SCL 1063; 2012 GWD 33–667
Tolstoy Miloslavsky v UK (18139/91) [1995] ECHR 25; (1995) 20 EHRR 442; [1996] EMLR 152
Varney (Scotland) Ltd v Lanark Town Council 1974 SC 245; 1976 SLT 46
West v Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385; 1992 SLT 636; 1992 SCLR 504; The Scotsman, 5 May 1992; The Times, 11 June 1992
Wightman v Advocate General for Scotland sub nom Wightman v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2018] CSIH 18; 2018 SC 388; 2018 SLT 356; 2018 SCLR 588
Wightman v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2018] CSIH 62; 2019 SC 111; 2018 SLT 959; [2019] 1 CMLR 23; The Times, 12 September 2018
Zubac v Croatia (40160/12) [2018] ECHR 306; (2018) 67 EHRR 28
Civil Procedure Rule Committee, Practice Direction 54A: Judicial Review (Ministry of Justice, London, April 2010), para 8.4 (Online: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part54/pd_part54a (31 July 2020))
Clyde, J, and Edwards, D, Judicial Review (W Green, Edinburgh,, 2000), paras 3.09, 9.03
Honore, T, About Law: An introduction (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995), p 77
Gill (Rt Hon Lord), Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review (B60185) (Scottish Civil Courts Review, Edinburgh, September 2009), vol 1, p 265, 152 (Online: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/civil-courts-reform/report-of-the-scottish-civil-courts-review-vol-1-chapt-1---9.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (5 July 2020))
Gill (Rt Hon Lord), Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review (B60185) (Scottish Civil Courts Review, Edinburgh, September 2009), vol 2, Ch 12, paras 42, 51 (Online: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/civil-courts-reform/report-of-the-scottish-civil-courts-review-vol-2-chapt-10---15.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (5 July 2020))
Lord President (Hamilton), Practice Note (No 3 of 2011): Causes in the Inner House (Scottish Courts Adminstration, Edinburgh, August 2011), para 84 (Online: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/practice-notes/court-of-session/pn3of2011.pdf?sfvrsn=12 (5 July 2020))
Lord President (Carloway), Practice Note (No 3 of 2017): Judicial Review (Scottish Courts and Tribunals, Edinburgh, June 2017), paras 2, 12, 13 (Online: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/rules-and-practice/practice-notes/court-of-session/court-of-session---practice-note---number-3-of-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (5 July 2020))
Scottish Government, Court Reforms (Scotland) Bill: Policy memorandum (SP Bill 46–PM) (Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, February 2014), paras 173, 186, 187, 189 (Online: https://www.parliament.scot/S4_Bills/Courts%20Reform%20(Scotland)%20Bill/b46s4-introd-pm.pdf (31 July 2020))
Scottish Government, Court Reforms (Scotland) Bill: Revised explanatory notes (SP Bill 46A–EN) (Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, September 2014), para 137 (Online: https://www.parliament.scot/S4_Bills/Courts%20Reform%20(Scotland)%20Bill/b46as4-stage2-en-rev.pdf (31 July 2020))
Stair, JD, Institutions of the Law of Scotland: Deduced from its originals and collated with the civil, canon and feudal laws and with the customs of neighbouring nations (4th More ed, Bell and Bradfute, Edinburgh, 1832)
Thomson, S, The Nobile Officium (Avizandum, Edinburgh, 2015), pp 21, 102
Administrative law — Judicial review — Refusal of request to review a refusal of permission to proceed — Whether oral hearing required — Whether compatible with Convention rights — Court of Session Act 1988 (cap 36), secs 27B–27D — European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art 6
Process — Judicial review — Petition for judicial review seeking reduction of interlocutors pronounced in prior process — Whether reduction competent
Process — Judicial review — Argument advanced in reclaiming motion not contained in pleadings — Whether competent in absence of minute of amendment
April Prior, Gordon Burns and Joseph Millbank each presented a petition under the judicial review procedure in the Court of Session seeking to bring under judicial review the provisions of the Court of Session Act 1988 concerning refusal of a request to review a refusal of permission to proceed without first holding an oral hearing and seeking, inter alia, reduction of certain interlocutors pronounced in previous petitions for judicial review. On 7 March 2019, the Lord Ordinary (Carmichael) refused the petitions ([2019] CSOH 23; 2019 SLT 337). The petitioners reclaimed.
The Court of Session Act 1988 (cap 36) (‘the 1988 Act’), sec 27B, provides, in part, “(1) No proceedings may be taken in respect of an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court unless the Court has granted permission for the application to proceed. (2) … the Court may grant permission under subsection (1) for an application to proceed only if it is satisfied that– (a) the applicant can demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application, and (b) the application has a real prospect of success. … (5) The Court may decide whether or not to grant permission without an oral hearing having been held.” Section 27C provides, in part, “(1) Subsection (2) applies where, in relation to an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court– (a) the Court– (i) refuses permission under [section] 27B(1) for the application to proceed, or (ii) grants permission for the application to proceed subject to conditions or only on particular grounds, and (b) the Court decides to refuse permission, or grant permission as mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii), without an oral hearing having been held. (2) The person making the application may, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which that decision is made, request a review of the decision at an oral hearing. (3) A request under subsection (2) must be considered by a different Lord Ordinary from the one who refused permission or granted permission as mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(ii). (4) Where a request under subsection (2) is granted, the oral hearing must be conducted before a different Lord Ordinary from the one who refused or so granted permission.” Section 27D provides, in part, “(1) Subsection (2) applies where, after an oral hearing to determine whether or not to grant permission for an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court to proceed, the Court– (a) refuses permission for the application to proceed, or (b) grants permission for the application to proceed subject to conditions or only on particular grounds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland
...33; [1993] RVR 127; 143 NLJ 17; [1992] NPC 154; The Times, 30 November 1992; The Independent, 26 November 1992 Prior v Scottish Ministers [2020] CSIH 36; 2020 SC 528; 2020 SLT 762 R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Wynne [1993] 1 WLR 115; [1993] 1 All ER 574 R v Treasury (......
-
Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland
...33; [1993] RVR 127; 143 NLJ 17; [1992] NPC 154; The Times, 30 November 1992; The Independent, 26 November 1992 Prior v Scottish Ministers [2020] CSIH 36; 2020 SC 528; 2020 SLT 762 Prospect Healthcare (Hairmyres) Ltd v Kier Build Ltd (No 1) [2017] CSIH 70; 2018 SC 155; 2018 SLT 47 RM v Scott......
-
Riad Djennas (ap) Against Glasgow City Council
...claim under the 1998 Act a long time after the commencement of the proceedings. In addition, under reference to Prior v Scottish Ministers 2020 SC 528 at para [37], the sheriff considered the importance of procedural deadlines being adhered to. Further, the appellant had not provided any ex......
-
Petition Of Anu Sharma For Judicial Review Of A Decision Of The Upper Tribunal Of Scotland
...decision as to whether it is in the interests of justice to grant or refuse it – rule 3(5)(a)(iii). [23] In Prior v Scottish Ministers [2020] CSIH 36; 2020 SC 528 the court was considering in an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session the failure to comply with t......