Judge rejects claim by billionaire that Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, had interfered in decision to approve windfarm

Donald Trump has lost a legal action against a major experimental windfarm being built close to his golf resort in Aberdeenshire.

The billionaire property developer had alleged that Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, had secretly interfered in the decision to approve the 11-turbine European offshore wind deployment centre site (EOWDC) in Aberdeen Bay – a claim rejected on Tuesday by a Scottish civil court judge, Lord Doherty.

Making clear he was expecting to appeal, Trump alleged there had been clear and illegal bias by the Scottish government – and that his rights under the European convention of human rights had been breached.

Doherty dismissed the claims that Salmond had interfered, stating he "was not persuaded that the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias on the part of the decision-maker; or that the decision not to have a public inquiry had been unreasonable or unlawful".

In a ruling with far wider significance for the future of Scottish wind power, the judge also disputed a previous court ruling that no wind farm could be approved until or unless it has an electricity generation licence.

Planning approval for one of Europe's largest onshore windfarms, the huge 103-turbine Viking scheme on Shetland, was suspended in October after a judge, Lady Clark, ruled that it should not have been granted without an electricity generation licence under the Electricity Act 1989.

Her decision – against which the Scottish government is appealing – caused consternation for renewables companies and ministers since it implied that numerous windfarm applications could be legally flawed. Clark also said ministers had breached the EU birds directive, by failing to properly protect the whimbrel, a rare and vulnerable wading bird native to Shetland.

Trump sought but failed last year to become a party to the Viking windfarm appeal, to support the Sustainable Shetland anti-windfarm legal case, but used that case to justify his judicial review of the EOWDC project.

In a summary of Doherty's decision released on Tuesday morning, the court of session said Doherty had decided to reject the earlier ruling. He believed that "on a proper construction of the 1989 act the respondents had power to grant section 36 consent to persons such as Aberdeen Offshore Wind Farm Ltd."

In a brief statement issued in New York, the Trump Organisation said: "Today's decision has not altered our unwavering commitment to protect our investment in Scotland.

"We are reviewing Lord Doherty's decision and will pursue the legal options available to us as recommended by our counsel. Communities worldwide continue to challenge the destructive proliferation of wind turbines and we will remain a fierce opponent at the forefront of this battle.

"Despite today's decision, the EOWDC proposal has numerous economic and legal obstacles that will ultimately prevent its construction."

The court had heard evidence from a golfing blogger and a professor of linguistics that Salmond had told him during lunch at a function that the EOWDC scheme would "absolutely" go ahead, before planning approval had been granted by Marine Scotland.

Trump also alleges that the decision not to have a full planning inquiry, despite the fact it was not know what type of wind turbines would be used for the project, and that different types of machine could be used at different times, was improper.

Doherty ruled on Tuesday that Trump's human rights were not relevant to this case, adding that he was "satisfied that the [planning] minister had taken account of the experimental nature of the deployment centre; and that he was entitled to grant consent subject to the conditions which he imposed".