McMASTER AND OTHERS, PETITION OF AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2018] ScotCS CSIH_40 (12 June 2018)

McMASTER AND OTHERS, PETITION OF AGAINST THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2018] ScotCS CSIH_40 (12 June 2018)

The Remedial Order did not require compensation for the value of the secure 1991 Act tenancies because those rights were conferred by unlawful legislation and for no consideration. Compensation is only due for specific losses directly caused by reasonable reliance on the apparent right to a secure tenancy, not for the value of the tenancy itself. The claims of the general partners are limited to such reliance losses, and the claims of the limited partnerships and limited partners are irrelevant or lack standing.

Citation
[2018] ScotCS CSIH_40
Parties
Petitioners and Reclaimers: R A McMaster and Others; Respondents: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed.
Legal Topics
Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR, Legitimate Expectation, Compensation for Unlawful Legislation, Agricultural Tenancy, Remedial Legislation, Proportionality, Possessions Under ECHR
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Property Law Administrative Law Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR Legitimate Expectation Compensation for Unlawful Legislation Agricultural Tenancy +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R A McMaster and Others

Petitioners and Reclaimers

The Scottish Ministers

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Remedial Order and refusal to pay compensation breached Article 1 of the First Protocol ECHR
  2. 2 Whether general partners are entitled to compensation for loss of secure 1991 Act tenancies
  3. 3 Whether legitimate expectation or the value of the farming business constitutes a possession under Article 1

Ratio Decidendi

The Remedial Order did not require compensation for the value of the secure 1991 Act tenancies because those rights were conferred by unlawful legislation and for no consideration. Compensation is only due for specific losses directly caused by reasonable reliance on the apparent right to a secure tenancy, not for the value of the tenancy itself. The claims of the general partners are limited to such reliance losses, and the claims of the limited partnerships and limited partners are irrelevant or lack standing.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed.

Orders

  • Claims for compensation limited to losses directly caused by reasonable reliance on the apparent right to a secure 1991 Act tenancy.
  • Petitioners (general partners) to amend pleadings to specify qualifying status, specific reliance losses, and benefits obtained from extended tenancy.