Introduction

The case of Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation v Scottish Ministers ([2021] ScotCS CSIH_68) adjudicated by the Scottish Court of Session addresses significant issues surrounding administrative law, specifically focusing on the principles of procedural fairness and legitimate expectation in the context of fisheries management. The petitioners, represented by the Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation, challenged the decisions made by Scottish Ministers regarding the assessment and rejection of a new fisheries management proposal for the Inner Sound of Skye. The core dispute centered on whether Marine Scotland appropriately applied the established guidance criteria when evaluating the petitioners' proposal, especially after initial consultations had already been conducted.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Session, presided over by Lord President Lord Turnbull and Lord Carloway, delivered a landmark decision that emphasized the necessity for public bodies to adhere strictly to procedural guidelines when assessing proposals. The Lord Ordinary initially sanctioned Marine Scotland's interlocutors for not applying the predefined guidance criteria during the reassessment of the petitioners' new proposal. However, upon judicial review, the court concluded that Marine Scotland's decision-making process was appropriate and that the Lord Ordinary had incorrectly interpreted the scope and applicability of the guidance criteria. Consequently, the petitioners' claims regarding procedural unfairness and breach of legitimate expectation were largely dismissed, reinforcing the discretionary latitude of public authorities in administrative decisions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that delineate the boundaries of legitimate expectation and procedural fairness in administrative law:

• R (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363 - Highlighted the establishment of legitimate expectations based on clear representations by public authorities.
• R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents [1990] 1 WLR 1545 - Emphasized the necessity for public bodies to honor unambiguous representations unless overridden by substantial reasons.
• R (WL (Congo) v Home Secretary [2012] 1 AC 245 - Reinforced the principle that legitimate expectations must be clearly established and are not to be presumed.
• Rainbow Insurance Co v Financial Services Commission [2015] UKPC 15 - Discussed the protection of individuals against unfair administrative practices.
• R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 19 - Addressed the threshold for legitimate expectation claims.
• IBA Healthcare v Office of Fair Trading [2004] ICR 1364 - Discussed the appropriate level of judicial review in administrative decisions not involving fundamental rights.

These precedents collectively informed the court's understanding of the boundaries within which public authorities must operate, particularly regarding the creation and upholding of procedural norms.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected the Lord Ordinary's reasoning, scrutinizing whether Marine Scotland had adhered to the established guidance when reassessing the new proposal. The core legal issues revolved around:

• Application of Guidance Criteria: The pivotal question was whether the predefined criteria should govern the reassessment of a new proposal post-initial consultation.
• Legitimate Expectation: Whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation that Marine Scotland would strictly adhere to the original guidance criteria during reassessment.
• Procedural Fairness: Whether Marine Scotland's process respected the principles of fairness, including consistency, transparency, and reasoned decision-making.

The court concluded that the Lord Ordinary had misconstrued the application of the guidance, failing to recognize that the second consultation represented a distinct decision-making process where the original criteria did not rigidly apply. Furthermore, the court found that Marine Scotland had appropriately considered the consultation responses, which were legitimate factors in administrative decision-making, thus upholding the principles of procedural fairness.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the autonomy of public authorities in administrative decision-making, especially in balancing established guidelines with evolving circumstances and stakeholder inputs. It underscores that while procedural fairness is paramount, it does not necessitate inflexibility in applying guidance when distinct phases of decision-making are involved. Future cases involving administrative reviews in fisheries management and beyond may cite this judgment to delineate the scope of legitimate expectations and the extent of adherence required to procedural guidelines.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Legitimate Expectation

Legitimate Expectation refers to the anticipation held by individuals or groups that a public authority will act in a certain manner, based on the authority's previous statements, policies, or practices. In this case, the petitioners expected Marine Scotland to assess their new proposal strictly according to the original guidance criteria, believing that this was a promised or established practice.

Procedural Fairness

Procedural Fairness ensures that administrative decisions are made following a fair and transparent process. It includes the right to be heard, unbiased decision-making, and clear reasoning behind decisions. The petitioners alleged that Marine Scotland's reassessment lacked procedural fairness by not applying the predefined criteria.

Interlocutors

Interlocutors are temporary rulings or decisions made by a lower court or a judge before the final judgment. In this case, the Lord Ordinary issued interlocutors regarding the assessment of the fisheries proposals, which were later challenged by the petitioners.

Conclusion

The Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation v Scottish Ministers judgment serves as a pivotal reference in administrative law, particularly concerning the balance between adhering to procedural guidelines and exercising discretionary judgment in public decision-making. By upholding Marine Scotland's process and dismissing the petitioners' claims of procedural unfairness, the court affirmed the legitimacy of public authorities to adapt their assessment frameworks in response to evolving scenarios and stakeholder feedback. This decision not only clarifies the application of legitimate expectations but also delineates the boundaries within which procedural fairness must operate, thereby providing a nuanced understanding of administrative law principles in practice.