Wilson v Independent Broadcasting Authority
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 26. |
| Date | 19 February 1979 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE
Lord Ross.
InterdictJurisdictionTitle and interest to suePublic interestScheduled party political television broadcasts before ReferendumAction by private citizens to prevent broadcastLocus standiAll parties not calledInterim interdictBalance of convenience.
StatuteStatutory obligationsStatutory authorityIndependent Broadcasting AuthorityDuty to maintain a proper balance in subject matter of programmesConstructionWhether duty to maintain a proper balance of programmes in any particular subject matterScheduled party political television broadcast on ReferendumThree broadcasts favouring "Yes," one broadcast favouring "No"Whether broadcasts maintained a proper balanceWhether statute provided a remedyIndependent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 (cap. 19), secs. 2 (2) (b)1 and 22 (3)2.
The Independent Broadcasting Authority ("I.B.A.") planned to broadcast four party political broadcasts before the Referendum in Scotland on 1st March 1979 on the question "Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect?" Three of the broadcasts were on behalf of political parties known to favour a "Yes" vote on the Referendum campaign and only one on behalf of a political party known to favour a "No" vote.
Three members of the "Labour Vote No Campaign Committee" petitioned the Court of Session to interdict the I.B.A. from putting out the broadcasts on the ground that in doing so the I.B.A. would be in breach of their statutory duty under sec. 2 (2) (b) of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 to ensure that programmes broadcast by them maintained a proper balance. The initial motion for interim interdict was refused until the I.B.A. had had an opportunity to lodge answers.
At the second hearing on the motion for interim interdict the I.B.A. sought to resist the granting of interim interdict on several grounds. All parties had not been called and the petition should have been served
on all four political parties. The petitioners had no title or interest as members of the public to seek interdict. Sec. 2 (2) (b) of the 1973 Act was not concerned with ensuring a balanced viewpoint but related only to the subject-matter in its quantitative and qualitative sense. The Act provided a remedy for any breach by giving the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications the power to stop the broadcast. On the balance of convenience interim interdict should be refused. The three individuals representing the Scottish National Party tendered answers at the second hearing and sought to support the argument for the I.B.A., arguing also that the arrangement made by the I.B.A. with the Scottish National Party for one of the broadcasts amounted to a contract with which the court should be reluctant to interfereHeld (1) that the plea of all parties not called could be sustained only if all parties had not been called whose appearance was necessary to have the question at issue effectively disposed of; and the presence of the four major political parties in the process was not necessary to enable a decision to be taken as to whether there had been a breach of statutory duty by the I.B.A. (2) That there was no reason in principle why an individual should not sue in order to prevent a breach by a public body of a duty owed by that public body to the public provided he could qualify an interest; and that the petitioners in this case had a sufficient material interest because they were voters and the Referendum gave them the choice to say...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coughlan v Broadcasting Complaints Commission
...instance the Plaintiff/Respondent in the present case relied heavily on dicta of Lord Ross in Wilson v. Independent Broadcasting Authority 1979 SC 351. In particular he relied on a passage which appears at pp 358 359of the Judgment: 240 "I accept that, when arranging party political broadca......
-
Trevor Adams And Others For Judicial Review Of The Protection Of Wild Mammals (scotland) Act 2002
...whether the participation of the Parliamentary corporation in the proceedings is necessary: Wilson v Independent Broadcasting Authority 1979 S.C. 351 at p.356. In practical terms, the Parliamentary corporation has indicated that it does not wish to participate. The Lord Advocate, he submitt......
-
Marco Mcginty V. The Scottish Ministers
...sufficient title to sue in order to "prevent a breach by a public body of a duty owed by that public body to the public": cf Wilson v IBA 1979 SC 351, he did not consider the petitioner also to have the interest which was necessary in addition to title. To qualify an interest a person must ......
-
Axa General Insurance Limited And Others For Judicial Review Of The Damages (asbestos-releated Conditions) (scotland) Act 2009
...they have contributed', and a title flowing from that position and interest." [54] In Wilson & Others v Independent Broadcasting Authority 1979 SC 351, the issue was whether the pursuers were entitled to challenge the political balance of certain TV broadcasts in advance of a referendum, an......