McMaster & Ors v The Scottish Ministers [2017] ScotCS CSOH_46 (21 March 2017)

McMaster & Ors v The Scottish Ministers [2017] ScotCS CSOH_46 (21 March 2017)

The Remedial Order did not violate the petitioners' rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The Order was proportionate, struck a fair balance, and compensation was not required. Only general partners who obtained tenancies may have victim status, but their claims for compensation are rejected. The Scottish Ministers' refusal to pay compensation was lawful.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_46
Parties
Petitioner: R A McMaster; Petitioner: R & N McMaster; Petitioner: N A McMaster; Petitioner: F M McMaster; Petitioner: C S Mitchell; Petitioner: Mains of Larg Farmers; Petitioner: M A Mitchell; Petitioner: F C Mitchell; Petitioner: D Shaw; Petitioner: Firm of Hillhead Farming Company; Petitioner: The Crofthead Farming Company; Petitioner: J G Shaw; Petitioner: C R Shaw; Petitioner: A A Stoddart; Petitioner: A C Stoddart & Sons (Colstoun 1995); Petitioner: E C Stoddart; Petitioner: W N Douglas; Petitioner: Damhead Farms; Petitioner: Messrs W N Douglas; Petitioner: I W Douglas; Petitioner: W N D Douglas; Petitioner: O B Douglas; Petitioner: J D Paterson; Petitioner: J D Paterson Trading as the Firm of Glenree Farmers; Petitioner: I W Paterson; Petitioner: T J Paterson; Petitioner: C Paterson; Respondent: The Scottish Ministers; Respondent: Scottish Government Legal Directorate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
21 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing, Determination of Principle
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Legislative Competence, Compensation for Deprivation of Property, European Convention on Human Rights Article 1 Protocol 1, Retrospective Legislation, Legitimate Expectation
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Property Law Administrative Law Legislative Competence Compensation for Deprivation of Property European Convention on Human Rights Article 1 Protocol 1 Retrospective Legislation +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 5 Authorities cited 45 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R A McMaster

Petitioner

R & N McMaster

Petitioner

N A McMaster

Petitioner

F M McMaster

Petitioner

C S Mitchell

Petitioner

Mains of Larg Farmers

Petitioner

M A Mitchell

Petitioner

F C Mitchell

Petitioner

D Shaw

Petitioner

Firm of Hillhead Farming Company

Petitioner

The Crofthead Farming Company

Petitioner

J G Shaw

Petitioner

C R Shaw

Petitioner

A A Stoddart

Petitioner

A C Stoddart & Sons (Colstoun 1995)

Petitioner

E C Stoddart

Petitioner

W N Douglas

Petitioner

Damhead Farms

Petitioner

Messrs W N Douglas

Petitioner

I W Douglas

Petitioner

W N D Douglas

Petitioner

O B Douglas

Petitioner

J D Paterson

Petitioner

J D Paterson Trading as the Firm of Glenree Farmers

Petitioner

I W Paterson

Petitioner

T J Paterson

Petitioner

C Paterson

Petitioner

The Scottish Ministers

Respondent

Scottish Government Legal Directorate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing, Determination of Principle

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Remedial Order under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 violates petitioners' rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR by failing to provide for compensation
  2. 2 Whether the Scottish Ministers' refusal to pay compensation is unlawful
  3. 3 Whether petitioners have victim status under ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Remedial Order did not violate the petitioners' rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The Order was proportionate, struck a fair balance, and compensation was not required. Only general partners who obtained tenancies may have victim status, but their claims for compensation are rejected. The Scottish Ministers' refusal to pay compensation was lawful.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petitioners' claims for compensation rejected
  • No entitlement to compensation under Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR