Taxpayers to Bear Six-Figure Costs After Court Ruling on Ethical Watchdog

London, United Kingdom Aug 27, 2026 ALN: Taxpayers face a six-figure legal bill as a new costs battle follows a senior Scots judge's ruling that the country's ethical watchdog acted unlawfully by blocking key evidence from a misconduct hearing against a Glasgow councillor.

Lord Sandison found the Standards Commission for Scotland had no lawful basis for refusing to admit seven documents which Fiona Higgins said were central to her defence over a social media post accusing a former Glasgow finance director of misleading councillors and the public.

Ms. Higgins has been trying to stop an allegedly unfair disciplinary hearing over social media posts accusing senior Glasgow City Council officials of misleading councillors about proposed education cuts, arguing the watchdog had barred key emails and budget documents that explain why she made the comments.

The judge said the seven documents would be needed to establish the factual basis for her comments and assess whether her right to freedom of expression had been unlawfully interfered with.

Ms. Higgins' solicitor advocate Peter Watson stated that the legal costs of the case would run into tens of thousands of pounds on her side alone. The overall cost of the litigation is likely to exceed £100,000 and would be expected to fall on the publicly funded Standards Commission as it lost the case.

Ms. Higgins' legal team is expected to seek an order for the Standards Commission to pay its costs after the court found its approach to the disputed evidence unlawful.

"Oh yes, we're going to be asking for costs. They lost. They could have avoided all of this at the outset, but they decided to contest it," he said.

"Obviously, they felt they had arguments to support what they had done. That's fine. They took the arguments to court. We had a full debate. They lost, and the way in which it works is they pay the bill."

The eventual amount has not yet been determined, and the commission could yet challenge the level of costs claimed.

Mr. Watson mentioned that because the Standards Commission is a public body, the costs could ultimately be subject to further scrutiny if there is a substantial disagreement over the bill.

In one post from August last year, Ms. Higgins accused a former council finance director of abusing influence to "wilfully and cynically mislead councillors and the public" over proposed teacher cuts and called for an investigation.

She argued that the documents she wanted admitted were central to explaining the factual basis for her comments and to her claim that her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged.

Lord Sandison stated that the Commission had "shut its ears" to Ms. Higgins' proposed submissions by preventing the material from being used at the substantive hearing.

The seven documents include an email chain involving a former council finance director, Glasgow's chief executive, and senior education officials about how budget proposals might be presented to councillors.

Other documents concern the potential effect of teacher cuts on Scottish Government grant funding, the impact of the budget on a programme for disadvantaged young people, education budget templates, and the development of the proposals.

The Standards Commission had argued that the documents were not directly relevant to the limited question of whether Ms. Higgins' social media comments breached the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

Mr. Watson said the judgment had significance beyond the individual case.

He stated: "This will provide clear guidance for how the commission deals with not only Fiona Higgins' case, which of course continues, but other cases where they may have taken a similar view and restricted what was going to be considered."

He added: "I mean, the right to a fair hearing is fundamental, and our complaint was we weren't getting it."

The solicitor advocate expressed surprise not by the outcome of the judgment but by the fact the commission had adopted the position that led to the court challenge.

He added: "It is, I think, a fairly obvious proposition that people should be allowed to defend themselves and put forward what they think is relevant to be considered whether or not ultimately who's making the decision agrees or not."

Mr. Watson noted that the case was particularly important because Ms. Higgins was an elected politician whose role involved representing constituents.

"Her job is to represent the interests of those who elect her. And I think Fiona Higgins thought it reasonable to understand what was happening when she was sitting on the education committee and discovered that there were fairly important changes being made to the numbers of teachers to be employed. She felt that it was important to explain that to her constituents," he said.

The case was funded by Paul McManus, drummer with Scottish rock band Gun and a businessman, who expressed delight at the ruling, stating, "I am absolutely delighted to win this case and for justice to prevail."

After the original hearing, a Standards Commission spokesman indicated that it would "carefully consider the detail" of the judge's comments and look to reschedule the hearing to conclude the complaint against Ms. Higgins.

The spokesman noted, "The Standards Commission considers this to have been an important case in respect to the extent to which it can make decisions based on both fairness and proportionality in respect to how its hearings are to be conducted."

He added that the Commission would consider its procedures and the implications for its resources in light of the judgment.

The Standards Commission stated it did not wish to comment on the costs of the case.

The costs issue will now be dealt with separately from the misconduct proceedings.

Mr. Watson indicated that the final figure could be determined through a normal court process and that a further hearing would only be required if the two sides could not agree on the amount.

The Standards Commission's disciplinary case against Ms. Higgins therefore remains unresolved, with the seven documents now set to form part of the evidence available when the substantive proceedings resume.