Description
A private individual, William Walton, brought this reclaiming action against a decision of the Outer House of the Court of Sessions from August 2011. The Outer House had refused an application for statutory appeal under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (RSA) against the Scottish Ministers in relation to the routing of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, part of the long running Aberdeen-bypass project.
Under para 2 Schedule 2 of the RSA in order for the court to quash a road construction scheme wholly or partially, the authority 1) must have acted outside their powers under the Act or 2) the interest of the “aggrieved person” must be prejudiced.
The claim that the authority acted ultra vires under the Act was rejected by the court on fact.
Claims that the authority failed to comply with legal requirements under the Compulsory Purchase Authorities (Inquiry Procedure) (Scotland) Rules 1998 and the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC were also rejected by the court.
In principle the court held that the reclaimer did not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under the Act and therefore lacked sufficient interest for the court to be able to grant a remedy even if he had been able to prove one or all claims.
The court distinguished the recent expansion of the concept of “title and interest” to “locus standi” in Axa General Insurance Ltd and Others v The Lord Advocate and others [2011] UKSC 46. In Axa General a stricter measure of interest is explicitly reserved for judicial review.
Although this case was not one of judicial review but a statutory appeal, Lord Clark in obiter stated that even if the criterion of “locus standi” was applied the reclaimer would not be considered to have sufficient interest to be entitled to the statutory remedy.
An appeal against this decision is scheduled to be heard by the UK Supreme Court on 09 July 2012
