AVIEMORE HIGHLAND RESORT LIMITED v. CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY [2009] ScotSC 121 (26 June 2009)
Section 14(1) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 cannot be contravened by acts completed before the Act came into force. The erection of the fence and planting of the hedge in 2004, before the statutory access rights existed, cannot constitute a contravention under section 14(1). The continuing presence of the fence and hedge does not amount to a continuing contravention unless the Act expressly includes maintenance, which it does not. The defenders failed to prove the hedge was planted after commencement, so the notice was incompetent.
- Citation
- [2009] ScotSC 121
- Parties
- Pursuer/appellant: Aviemore Highland Resort Limited; Defender/respondent: Cairngorms National Park Authority
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 26 June 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; interlocutor of sheriff recalled; notice quashed.
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Interpretation, Retrospectivity, Access Rights, Land Reform (scotland) Act 2003
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Aviemore Highland Resort Limited
Pursuer/appellant
Cairngorms National Park Authority
Defender/respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a notice under section 14 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 can be served in respect of works/actions completed prior to the commencement of the Act
- 2 Whether the continuing presence of a fence and hedge erected before the Act constitutes a contravention under section 14(1)
Ratio Decidendi
Section 14(1) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 cannot be contravened by acts completed before the Act came into force. The erection of the fence and planting of the hedge in 2004, before the statutory access rights existed, cannot constitute a contravention under section 14(1). The continuing presence of the fence and hedge does not amount to a continuing contravention unless the Act expressly includes maintenance, which it does not. The defenders failed to prove the hedge was planted after commencement, so the notice was incompetent.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of sheriff recalled; notice quashed.
Orders
- Recall the interlocutor of the sheriff dated 14 January 2009.
- Sustain the first, second, and third pleas in law for the pursuers/appellants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment