Fergusson Buchanan v. Dumbarton County Council [1923] ScotLR 39 (14 November 1923)

Fergusson Buchanan v. Dumbarton County Council [1923] ScotLR 39 (14 November 1923)

Interim interdict was refused because the proceedings were those of a public authority acting under statutory powers for a public purpose, and the balance of convenience did not favour immediate restraint. However, refusal was conditional on the respondents finding caution for any damages the complainers might prove, given the possibility of irreparable harm and uncertainty about statutory compensation.

Citation
[1923] ScotLR 39
Parties
Complainers: Lieutenant-Colonel George James Fergusson Buchanan of Auchentorlie, Bowling, the Littlemill Distillery Company, Bowling, and Admiral John E. Bearcroft, residing at Torwood, Bowling; Respondents: Dumbarton County Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 November 1923
Procedural Posture
Note of Suspension and Interdict / Interim Interdict Application, Reclaiming Note Before Inner House
Outcome
Interim interdict refused in hoc statu, conditional on respondents finding caution for damages.
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Public Authority Powers, Compulsory Acquisition, Relief Works, Balance of Convenience
Administrative Law Property Law Public Law Interim Interdict Public Authority Powers Compulsory Acquisition Relief Works Balance of Convenience

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lieutenant-Colonel George James Fergusson Buchanan of Auchentorlie, Bowling, the Littlemill Distillery Company, Bowling, and Admiral John E. Bearcroft, residing at Torwood, Bowling

Complainers

Dumbarton County Council

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Note of Suspension and Interdict / Interim Interdict Application, Reclaiming Note Before Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim interdict should be granted against a public authority entering land under statutory powers pending determination of rights
  2. 2 Whether statutory procedures for compulsory acquisition and compensation were complied with
  3. 3 Whether balance of convenience favours granting interim interdict

Ratio Decidendi

Interim interdict was refused because the proceedings were those of a public authority acting under statutory powers for a public purpose, and the balance of convenience did not favour immediate restraint. However, refusal was conditional on the respondents finding caution for any damages the complainers might prove, given the possibility of irreparable harm and uncertainty about statutory compensation.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict refused in hoc statu, conditional on respondents finding caution for damages.

Orders

  • Adhere to interlocutor of 9th November 1923; refuse interim interdict in hoc statu, conditional on respondents finding caution by specified date for any damage complainers may instruct; continue the cause.