East Lothian Council, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 61 (14 March 2001)

East Lothian Council, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 61 (14 March 2001)

There are disputed issues of fact regarding what was apparent to the District Valuer and whether relevant factors were considered; affidavits are insufficient to resolve these disputes; the petitioners have pled a case that merits proof; pleas in law (relevancy and mora, taciturnity, acquiescence) are reserved for determination after evidence is led.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 61
Parties
Petitioner: East Lothian Council; Tenants/respondents: Heather Lumsden and Andrew Ingle; Respondent (not Entered Process): District Valuer
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing; Interlocutory Decision on Pleas in Law
Outcome
Pleas in law not sustained; case to proceed to proof; pleas reserved.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Valuation of Property, Statutory Right to Buy, Delay (mora, Taciturnity, Acquiescence)
Administrative Law Property Law Judicial Review Valuation of Property Statutory Right to Buy Delay (mora, Taciturnity, Acquiescence)

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

East Lothian Council

Petitioner

Heather Lumsden and Andrew Ingle

Tenants/respondents

District Valuer

Respondent (not Entered Process)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing; Interlocutory Decision on Pleas in Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Valuer's determination of market value was perverse
  2. 2 Whether relevant factors, including Blue Circle's interest, were properly considered
  3. 3 Whether delay by petitioners bars the claim (mora, taciturnity, acquiescence)

Ratio Decidendi

There are disputed issues of fact regarding what was apparent to the District Valuer and whether relevant factors were considered; affidavits are insufficient to resolve these disputes; the petitioners have pled a case that merits proof; pleas in law (relevancy and mora, taciturnity, acquiescence) are reserved for determination after evidence is led.

Court Disposition

Pleas in law not sustained; case to proceed to proof; pleas reserved.

Orders

  • Petition put out By Order for discussion as to further procedure on 21 March 2001.
  • No final determination; oral evidence to be led before resolution.