Roy Mchattie Against South Ayrshire Council
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Lord Boyd of Duncansby |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] CSOH 4 |
| Date | 27 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | P1120/19 |
| Court | Court of Session |
| Published date | 08 January 2020 |
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2020] CSOH 4
P1120/19
OPINION OF LORD BOYD OF DUNCANSBY
In the petition of
ROY MCHATTIE
Petitioner
against
SOUTH AYRSHIRE COUNCIL
Respondent
Petitioner: Bain QC, Crawford; A WM Urquhart
Respondent: Macpherson; Clyde & Co
27 December 2019
[1] The petitioner is the guardian of his son Craig McHattie under a Guardianship Order
granted in his favour at Ayr Sheriff Court on 5 September 2019. Craig McHattie is 32 years
old. He suffers from a number of significant health issues including severe learning and
mobility issues. He attends Kyle Adult Care Centre 5 days a week and has done so for the
last 13 years. He and his parents are reliant on the facilities provided at the Kyle Centre and
he has developed important relationships with the carers. The facilities provide an
alternative to outings in the wider community which present significant hurdles to the
petitioner’s son.
2
[2] The respondent has decided to close the Kyle Centre. The date on which such a
decision was taken is somewhat obscure for the reasons set out below but the primary
decision appears to have been taken by the South Ayrshire Integrated Joint Board (the IJB)
on 26 June 2019. The IJB is a body corporate established under the Public Bodies (Joint
Working) (Scotland) Act 2014. It is not clear to me whether or not the IJB have had
intimation of the petition but since it appears the decision may also have required the
approval of the respondent’s Leadership Panel the issue is of no moment. The Kyle Centre
is operated by the respondent. The respondent did not suggest that they were not
responsible for the decision.
[3] The petitioner objects to the closure of the Kyle Centre. First he says that the
respondent failed to meet its statutory obligations under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010
(EA 2010) and the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2012/162 (the
Specific Duty Regulations). Specifically he submits that the respondent failed to carry out an
Equality Impact Assessment (EIA). Secondly he submits that he had a legitimate
expectation that he would be consulted on a proposal to close the Kyle Centre and no such
consultation took place. Thirdly, as a result of these failures the decision to close Kyle
Centre was irrational.
[4] The petitioner seeks
1) Production and reduction of the purported decision dated 26 June 2019.
2) For declarator that the respondent, by reaching the decision dated 26 June 2019
without consultation with the petitioner (and other service users and guardians)
that they frustrated the legitimate expectations of the petitioner.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Kaagobot Limited And Others Against City Of Edinburgh Council And United Sex Workers
...the nil determination. [77] Mr Welsh submitted that correct approach to this duty was set out in McHattie v South Ayrshire Council [ 2020] CSOH 4 in the opinion of Lord Boyd of Duncansby at paragraph [24] by reference to the judgement of Lord Justice McCombe in the English Court of Appeal d......
-
Petition Of Chase Shaffar Roggeveen For Judicial Review
...merits. I consider that the correct approach in this regard was set out by Lord Boyd of Duncansby from McHattie v South Ayrshire Council, [2020] CSOH 4 paragraph 51, as follows: “it would only be where it was plain and obvious that the outcome would be the same that it would be right to ref......