Findlay, Re Application for Judicial Review [2006] ScotCS CSOH_188 (06 December 2006)

Findlay, Re Application for Judicial Review [2006] ScotCS CSOH_188 (06 December 2006)

The respondents did not frustrate legitimate expectations or act unfairly; their interpretation of the Crichel Down Rules and statutory duty was tenable; they were entitled to review the price after allowing a reasonable opportunity to complete the transaction, and were not required to negotiate the reviewed price or give further ultimatum.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_188
Parties
Petitioner: John Findlay (as executor of the late Robert Findlay); Respondent: West Lothian Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Statutory Duty to Obtain Best Consideration, Interpretation of Policy Documents, Crichel Down Rules, Compulsory Purchase, Market Value, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Property Law Local Government Law Legitimate Expectation Statutory Duty to Obtain Best Consideration Interpretation of Policy Documents Crichel Down Rules Compulsory Purchase +2 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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Findlay (as executor of the late Robert Findlay)

Petitioner

West Lothian Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents breached legitimate expectations by reviewing and increasing the sale price after agreement under the Crichel Down Rules
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' actions were consistent with their statutory duty under section 74(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973
  3. 3 Whether the Crichel Down Rules required negotiation on the reviewed price

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents did not frustrate legitimate expectations or act unfairly; their interpretation of the Crichel Down Rules and statutory duty was tenable; they were entitled to review the price after allowing a reasonable opportunity to complete the transaction, and were not required to negotiate the reviewed price or give further ultimatum.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Third, fourth, and fifth pleas-in-law for respondents sustained
  • No order for conveyance or negotiation; respondents' decisions upheld