Mowbray v The Scottish Ministers and Fife Council [2014] ScotCS CSIH_100 (25 November 2014)

Mowbray v The Scottish Ministers and Fife Council [2014] ScotCS CSIH_100 (25 November 2014)

The appeal was refused because the appellant's grounds disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness, or other basis to vitiate the reporter's recommendation or the Scottish Ministers' decision. The reporter properly focused on the state of the property, gave adequate reasons, and followed fair procedure. The appellant's complaints amounted only to dissatisfaction with the outcome.

Citation
[2014] ScotCS CSIH_100
Parties
Appellant: John Mowbray; First Respondent: The Scottish Ministers; Second Respondent: Fife Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal Under the Acquisition of Land (authorisation Procedure) (scotland) Act 1947 and the Land Compensation (scotland) Act 1973 / Appeal From Confirmation of Compulsory Purchase Order
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase, Listed Buildings, Land Compensation, Fair Hearing, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Property Law Human Rights Compulsory Purchase Listed Buildings Land Compensation Fair Hearing Procedural Fairness

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mowbray

Appellant

The Scottish Ministers

First Respondent

Fife Council

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal Under the Acquisition of Land (authorisation Procedure) (scotland) Act 1947 and the Land Compensation (scotland) Act 1973 / Appeal From Confirmation of Compulsory Purchase Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reporter and Scottish Ministers erred in confirming the compulsory purchase order for 222 High Street, Leslie
  2. 2 Whether the inquiry and decision-making process breached the appellant's right to a fair hearing under the Human Rights Act
  3. 3 Whether the reporter's findings and recommendations were vitiated by error of law or procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was refused because the appellant's grounds disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness, or other basis to vitiate the reporter's recommendation or the Scottish Ministers' decision. The reporter properly focused on the state of the property, gave adequate reasons, and followed fair procedure. The appellant's complaints amounted only to dissatisfaction with the outcome.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal refused.