Image from Google Jackets

McLaren`s Trustee v SoS for Scotland

Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; (1989) SLT 83-86(4)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: Court of Session Second Division 31 May 1988. Appeal by landowner (M) from decision by LT for Scotland on the amount of compensation payable by the SoS for Scotland (S) in respect of acquisition of part of Kinrara Estate, Inverness-shire and the injurious affection and disturbance to the remainder of the estate resulting from the alignment of the A9 trunk road . The amount claimed by M totalled £335,696; the amount S was willing to pay was £50,370. LT determined the compensation payable to be 59,830 and reserved all questions of expenses , M appealed to the Court of Session, contending that he should have been found entitled to his whole expenses. He contended that LT had erred in law in concluding that it need not take into account the general rule that expenses follow success. LT had found that the success had been divided between the parties and that M`s conduct had prevented negotiations which would have reduced the time and expense of the hearing. The Court of Session agreed tha
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS40350 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 23234-1001

Court of Session Second Division 31 May 1988. Appeal by landowner (M) from decision by LT for Scotland on the amount of compensation payable by the SoS for Scotland (S) in respect of acquisition of part of Kinrara Estate, Inverness-shire and the injurious affection and disturbance to the remainder of the estate resulting from the alignment of the A9 trunk road . The amount claimed by M totalled £335,696; the amount S was willing to pay was £50,370. LT determined the compensation payable to be 59,830 and reserved all questions of expenses , M appealed to the Court of Session, contending that he should have been found entitled to his whole expenses. He contended that LT had erred in law in concluding that it need not take into account the general rule that expenses follow success. LT had found that the success had been divided between the parties and that M`s conduct had prevented negotiations which would have reduced the time and expense of the hearing. The Court of Session agreed tha