Stewart v. Perth and Kinross Council

I have had the advantage of reading the opinions of my noble and learned friends Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Carswell. I agree with their opinions. I would also dismiss the appeal.

LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD

My Lords,

The respondent has for many years carried on business as a dealer in second-hand motor vehicles. The place where he carries on this business is within the area for which the appellants are the local authority and, as such, the licensing authority for the purposes of Part II of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 ("the 1982 Act"). Section 9 of the 1982 Act enables a licensing authority to resolve that the carrying on in its area of any of the activities mentioned in sections 10 to 27 and 38 to 44 of the Act requires to be licensed in accordance with the provisions of that Act and is to be regulated by those provisions. Among the activities mentioned in Part II is the carrying on of a business as a second-hand dealer. On 4 December 1985 the Property and General Purposes Committee of the appellants' statutory predecessors, Perth and Kinross District Council ("the District Council"), resolved that all dealers purchasing or selling second-hand motor vehicles within the District would require to be licensed with effect from 1 February 1986.

The respondent first applied for a licence for his second-hand motor vehicle business in 1987. His application was granted, and a licence was issued to him. He applied for a renewal of his licence in 1990. This application too was granted, and a further licence was issued to him. It was valid until 31 July 1993. In 1993 he applied for a further renewal of his licence. His application was considered by the District Council's General Purposes (Licensing) Sub-Committee at meetings which were held on 4 and 18 February 1994. The Sub-Committee refused to renew the respondent's licence on this occasion, on the ground that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Among the reasons that were given for the refusal was the following:

On 13 February 1995 the sheriff pronounced an interlocutor remitting the respondent's application for the renewal of his licence to the District Council for reconsideration. On 6 December 1995 the sheriff's interlocutor was recalled by the Court of Session. On 4 May 2000 the respondent presented a petition to the Court of Session for judicial review of the decision of the District Council to refuse to renew his licence on the ground that its decision was ultra vires. On 15 June 2001…

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established