Inner House makes expenses award from Lord Advocate at Salvesen v Riddell Instance

A landlord who had been made to visit the Inner House of the Court of Session to protect his property rights was awarded expenses from your Lord Advocate later judges ruled he was”necessarily attracted” to a”costly and protracted lawsuit”.

The movement for costs against the Lord Advocate at the event of Salvesen v Riddell arrived following the UK Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Inner House a Scots law prohibit allowing a general partner to carry on a farming lien following dissolution of a limited partnership rent was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights since it calms the landlord’s land rights.

The limited liability partnership agreement provided that the partnership could come to a conclusion on 28 November 2008, also on 3 February 2003 that the appellant gave notice of dissolution to that aim.

The effect of this change was because the notice of dissolution was served following 16 September 2002, the respondents could be entitled to serve notice of the intention to become joint tenants of the plantation.

About 12 December 2008 the respondents served the note and upon getting it, the appellant applied to the Land Court for an order under section 72(8) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and also for eliminating of those respondents, however the Land Court denied the application.

Meanwhile howeverthe appellant settled together with the respondents as well as the arrangement was that he’d get vacant possession and no costs could be attributed to or from either party.

The appellant thereafter registered the movement contrary to the Lord Advocate for its expenses of procedure of this appeal and also the Land Court in an indemnity basis — to incorporate the expenses occasioned from the participation of these respondents — that neglecting the costs to a party and party basis with another fee under Rule 42.

Lord Gill — with whom Lady Clark and Lord Wheatley consented — held that the appellant couldn’t seek to recover costs against the Lord Advocate in relation to the actions from the Land Court, because the challenge into the vires of part 72 was not increased along with the Lord Advocate wasn’t convened in the event.

In connection with the expenses at the Court of Session, the court believed that a”fair assessment” is to obtain the Lord Advocate accountable in 50 percent of the appellant’s expenses, because he intervened in the appeal only when the Convention stage was increased.

Offering his view, the Lord President explained:”In my opinion the costs for the Lord Advocate is seen accountable needs to be on the scale that’s moved for. This was a lawsuit that the appellant has been made to run in defence of his right to vacant possession of his house contrary to laws which was discovered to be beyond the competence of this Parliament.

“Generally speaking, the courtroom awards indemnity costs to indicate its disapproval of a party’s conduct of a lawsuit; however at a discretionary matter of the sort, there might be other legitimate reasons for its doing this. In cases like this the appellant hasn’t yet been put to expense from the unreasonable behaviour of a competition. He’s been put to expense by an invalid statutory provision which, had he never contested its lawfulness, could have led to the reduction of vacant possession of his farm and thus in a considerable reduction of capital value.

“The appellant was drawn into this expensive and protracted litigation in effect of a supply which shouldn’t have been passed. In all the conditions, I conclude that expenditures in this courtroom on the scale suggested are completely justified. I suggest…that we ought to give the motion in terms of 50 percent of the costs of the proceedings in this court just; and that these expenses ought to be about the scale broker and customer, client paying.”

The movement for costs against the Lord Advocate at the event of Salvesen v Riddell arrived following the UK Supreme Court upheld a judgment of the Inner House a Scots law prohibit allowing a general partner to carry on a farming lien following dissolution of a limited partnership rent was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights since it calms the landlord’s land rights.

The limited liability partnership agreement provided that the partnership could come to a conclusion on 28 November 2008, also on 3 February 2003 that the appellant gave notice of dissolution to that aim.

The effect of this change was because the notice of dissolution was served following 16 September 2002, the respondents could be entitled to serve notice of the intention to become joint tenants of the plantation.

About 12 December 2008 the respondents served the note and upon getting it, the appellant applied to the Land Court for an order under section 72(8) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and also for eliminating of those respondents, however the Land Court denied the application.

Meanwhile howeverthe appellant settled together with the respondents as well as the arrangement was that he’d get vacant possession and no costs could be attributed to or from either party.

The appellant thereafter registered the movement contrary to the Lord Advocate for its expenses of procedure of this appeal and also the Land Court in an indemnity basis — to incorporate the expenses occasioned from the participation of these respondents — that neglecting the costs to a party and party basis with another fee under Rule 42.

Lord Gill — with whom Lady Clark and Lord Wheatley consented — held that the appellant couldn’t seek to recover costs against the Lord Advocate in relation to the actions from the Land Court, because the challenge into the vires of part 72 was not increased along with the Lord Advocate wasn’t convened in the event.

In connection with the expenses at the Court of Session, the court believed that a”fair assessment” is to obtain the Lord Advocate accountable in 50 percent of the appellant’s expenses, because he intervened in the appeal only when the Convention stage was increased.

Offering his view, the Lord President explained:”In my opinion the costs for the Lord Advocate is seen accountable needs to be on the scale that’s moved for. This was a lawsuit that the appellant has been made to run in defence of his right to vacant possession of his house contrary to laws which was discovered to be beyond the competence of this Parliament.

“Generally speaking, the courtroom awards indemnity costs to indicate its disapproval of a party’s conduct of a lawsuit; however at a discretionary matter of the sort, there might be other legitimate reasons for its doing this. In cases like this the appellant hasn’t yet been put to expense from the unreasonable behaviour of a competition. He’s been put to expense by an invalid statutory provision which, had he never contested its lawfulness, could have led to the reduction of vacant possession of his farm and thus in a considerable reduction of capital value.

“The appellant was drawn into this expensive and protracted litigation in effect of a supply which shouldn’t have been passed. In all the conditions, I conclude that expenditures in this courtroom on the scale suggested are completely justified. I suggest…that we ought to give the motion in terms of 50 percent of the costs of the proceedings in this court just; and that these expenses ought to be about the scale broker and customer, client paying.”