Emslie & Simpson Ltd v Aberdeen City District Council
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1995 |
| Date | 24 January 1995 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Inner House of the Court of Session
Before the Lord President (Lord Hope), Lord Morison and Lord Weir
Scots law - land compensation - compulsory purchase - entitlement
In cases of disputed compensation arising out of a compulsory purchase order, the general rule was that the acquiring authority should bear the expenses of a reference to the Lands Tribunal.
Where occupiers of property which was subject to such an order had been paid advance compensation prior to a final determination of compensation, and had referred their claim to the tribunal, which had awarded them not only less than the sum claimed, but less than their advance compensation, with the result that they had had to repay the amount by which the advance compensation had exceeded the final award, the tribunal had nevertheless been entitled to award the claimants the expenses of the reference, on the grounds that the award had been more than the sum offered by the authority at the hearing, and that the authority had not used the statutory procedure to make a formal tender.
The First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session so held, refusing an appeal by the City of Aberdeen District Council against a decision of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland awarding Emslie & Simpson Ltd the expenses of their reference to the tribunal of a claim for compensation in respect of a compulsory purchase order.
Mr Gordon Reid, QC, for the appellants; the respondents did not appear and were not represented.
LORD MORISON, with whose opinion the Lord President agreed, said that, in terms of section 48, the appellants had been obliged to pay the claimants the advance compensation, and that the appellants had not used the procedure provided by the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 to make an offer having the same effect as a tender in ordinary litigation.
In those circumstances, the advance payment was not equivalent to an offer which the claimants should have considered before making the reference. The effect on the issue of expenses of the fact that the sum claimed had greatly exceeded the eventual award had been a matter for the discretion of the tribunal; and in any event, in the ordinary case it was perfectly reasonable for a claimant to seek the largest sum for which he could reasonably argue.
The tribunal had been entitled to regard the fact that the award substantially exceeded the appellants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº ACQ 452 2009. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 06-10-2015
...[1995] 2 AC 111 Ramac Holdings Ltd v Kent County Council [2014] UKUT 109 (LC) Emslie and Simpson Ltd v Aberdeen City District Council [1994] 1 EGLR 33 Pattle v Secretary of State for Transport [2009] UKUT 141 (LC) Optical Express (Southern) Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2005] 2 EGLR 141 Hu......
-
Purfleet Farms Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions
...of a successful claimant's costs. 23 Mr Barnes has referred us to the decision of the Court of Session of Scotland in Emslie & Simpson Limited v Aberdeen District Council [1995] RVR 159 as affording support for the approach which he advocates, albeit the judgments in that case made no refer......
-
Decision Nº ACQ 91 2011. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 03-04-2014
...LBC [1976] 1 WLR 852 Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung [1995] 2 AC 111 Emslie & Simpson Ltd v Aberdeen City District Council [1994] 1 EGLR 33 Harris v Welsh Development Agency [2000] RVR 49 Harvey v Crawley DC [1957] 1 QB 485 Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26 Lancaster ......
- Mallick v Liverpool City Council