Mull Campus Working Group LTD for Judicial Review (Court of Session) [2026] CSOH 11 (18 February 2026)

Executive summary

This opinion records a judicial review by Mull Campus Working Group Limited challenging the respondent council’s 7 March 2025 decision on selecting a preferred site for a new educational establishment on Mull. The background sets out the LEIP-funded project, the council’s earlier choice of a single-campus model, and the community engagement and site-selection process that followed.

Key points

• Petitioner: Mull Campus Working Group Limited; respondent: the local authority responsible for education provision on Mull.
• Challenge was to the 7 March 2025 preferred-site decision, not to the earlier December 2024 decision to pursue a single-campus model.
• The court emphasized the limited role of judicial review: it reviews lawfulness, not whether the council’s decision was right or wrong.
• Background shows the project was tied to LEIP funding, which was described as contingent on statutory consultation, land/site arrangements, and compliance with LEIP terms and processes.
• The opinion notes the bid was on a like-for-like basis and that Scottish Futures Trust said any split-site proposal would add cost and extra spaces would not be funded by LEIP.
• No sanctions, export-control, or national-security issue appears on the face of the source text.

Why it matters

The case is relevant to sovereign-risk style analysis because it shows how public infrastructure and education decisions can be constrained by funding conditions, consultation requirements, and judicial review risk. It does not engage sanctions or export controls directly, but it is useful on litigation risk around public-sector site selection and funding-dependent projects.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the key point is that the legality of the council’s process—not the merits of the policy choice—was the judicial review target, and the project’s funding was expressly contingent on consultation, land/site negotiation, and LEIP terms. Parties dealing with similar public projects should document engagement, funding contingencies, and decision-making steps carefully, because those elements are likely to matter more than broad policy disagreement in any challenge.