WILLIAM GRANT SINCLAIR & ALISON MAY PRESTON SINCLAIR v. FIFE COUNCIL [2012] ScotSC 119 (24 August 2012)

WILLIAM GRANT SINCLAIR & ALISON MAY PRESTON SINCLAIR v. FIFE COUNCIL [2012] ScotSC 119 (24 August 2012)

The notice was quashed because it unlawfully required the pursuers to reinstate the road, which they did not own and for which they were not responsible; the requirements of the notice were unreasonable in the circumstances, as the pursuers were not at fault for the collapse and could not reasonably comply with the notice as framed; and the notice lacked sufficient specification to enable compliance.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 119
Parties
Pursuer: William Grant Sinclair; Pursuer: Alison Mary Preston Sinclair; Defender: Fife Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Summary Application (statutory Appeal) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Notice quashed; all other pleas-in-law dismissed; hearing assigned on expenses and counsel sanction.
Legal Topics
Statutory Notices, Retaining Walls, Roads (scotland) Act 1984, Reasonableness of Statutory Requirements, Specification in Statutory Notices, Owner's Liability for Repairs
Administrative Law Property Law Local Government Law Statutory Notices Retaining Walls Roads (scotland) Act 1984 Reasonableness of Statutory Requirements Specification in Statutory Notices +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Grant Sinclair

Pursuer

Alison Mary Preston Sinclair

Pursuer

Fife Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Application (statutory Appeal) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Fife Council's notice under section 91(2) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 requiring the pursuers to reinstate a collapsed retaining wall and the road was lawful and reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the notice was sufficiently specified to allow compliance
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers could lawfully be required to reinstate the road as well as the wall

Ratio Decidendi

The notice was quashed because it unlawfully required the pursuers to reinstate the road, which they did not own and for which they were not responsible; the requirements of the notice were unreasonable in the circumstances, as the pursuers were not at fault for the collapse and could not reasonably comply with the notice as framed; and the notice lacked sufficient specification to enable compliance.

Court Disposition

Notice quashed; all other pleas-in-law dismissed; hearing assigned on expenses and counsel sanction.

Orders

  • Quashes the Notice in terms of Crave 1 of the Initial Writ.
  • Dismisses all other pleas-in-law.