News
28 August, 2026
Court of Session issues decision on Scottish Ministers’ petition for removal of Irish Travellers from Edinburgh development site
[2026] CSOH 82 – Petition of the Scottish Ministers for an order under section 46 of the Court of Session Act 1988 and for interdict and interdict ad interim
Lady Tait has issued an opinion in a case where the petitioners, the Scottish Ministers, sought an order under section 46 of the Court of Session Act 1988: (i) ordering the occupants to remove themselves, their caravans and all other goods from the site to restore possession of the site to the petitioners; and (ii) to interdict the occupants from entering the site.
Chris Stephen was instructed by the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) as the First Interested Party to produce a Minute of Written Submission addressing the UNCRC requirements under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation)(Scotland) Act 2024.
Summary
The petitioners are proprietors of an area of land. Planning permission has been granted for the development of the site. The respondent Is an Irish Traveller. The respondent and his family have occupied an area of the site since 2024. The respondent submitted that in circumstances where no culturally appropriate accommodation would be made available on eviction, the orders would constitute an unlawful interference with the respondent’s rights under Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). It was also submitted they would also be incompatible with the respondent’s children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”).
Outcome
There was no dispute that the petitioners’ redevelopment project was capable of constituting a legitimate aim, and that vacant possession of the site was rationally connected to that objective. The question for the court was whether an order to evict the respondent in the absence of appropriate alternative accommodation was a proportionate means of achieving that legitimate aim. Lady Tait concluded that there was no less intrusive measure than eviction and that the importance and urgency of the petitioners’ objectives outweighed the severity of the effect of the eviction. In those circumstances, the interference with the respondent’s Article 8 rights was proportionate. Nor was there an evidential basis to submit that the family had been discriminated against by the petitioners under Article 14.
With regards to the children’s rights under the UNCRC, it was accepted that the petitioners and the court were exercising a relevant function under the 2024 Act. However, there was no less intrusive measure than eviction and that the importance and urgency of the petitioners’ objectives outweighed the severity of the effect of the eviction. The current absence of accommodation did not elevate the site into one which was appropriate for the family and which served the children’s best interests.
Lady Tait granted the prayer of the petition and the orders sought. The opinion is available on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service website here.