Tag Archives: Land Court

The Year of The Crofting Law Sump

As 2015 draws to a close I am reproducing here an article I wrote for the Scottish Legal News Annual Review 2015. It looks at Crofting Law in 2014. Now a whole year ago I know. I have been asked to write another such review of 2015 which I will be doing shortly. That will appear in the Scottish Legal News Annual Review 2016.

The Crofting Law Sump was set up by the Crofting Law Group in 2013. The purpose of ‘the Sump’ was to gather together details of the significant problem areas within existing crofting legislation.

During passage through the Scottish Parliament of the Crofting (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013, MSPs were informed by practitioners who had been called to give evidence about the many problems in the existing legislation that were causing difficulties for crofters, landlords and others.

Paul Wheelhouse MSP, who was then Minister for Environment and Climate Change with responsibility for crofting, gave an undertaking that his officials would investigate, in consultation with stakeholders, what the best method might be for dealing with these outstanding issues.

The Sump was set up to assist the Government in this process. Administration was carried out by Derek Flyn, retired crofting lawyer, and Keith Graham, formerly Principal Clerk of the Scottish Land Court. 2014 saw much activity by them both collating the issues and problems that are causing difficulties, prioritising them and indicating how the problems can be resolved.

In May 2014 the Crofting Law Group held workshops in Inverness to look at the problem areas identified in the Collected Sump Report and provide feedback thereon. Following those workshops and a written consultation process the Commented Sump Report was produced. There was then feedback sought on the priority levels attributable to problem areas within that report. Further debate on the Sump took place at the Crofting Law Group Conference in Lochmaddy, North Uist in October. The Final Report of the Crofting Law Sump, highlighting 126 problem issues, was then presented to the Scottish Government on 10 December 2014.

2015 will be the year that we hopefully see what the Scottish Government plan to do to resolve all of the problem areas that have been identified.

Whilst the Sump was being contemplated the Scottish Land Court were making decisions that shaped or clarified the law. During the year Lord McGhie retired as Chairman of the Land Court and was succeeded by Sheriff Roderick John MacLeod QC who became Lord Minginish. Sheriff MacLeod had been the Deputy Chair of the Land Court since 2006.

Whilst there were a few interesting and important decisions of the Land Court in 2014 the crofting law year ended with a bang following their decision in MacGillivray v Crofting Commission (Application RN SLC/99/13 — decision of 18 December 2014).

That case concerned the Crofting Commission’s policy on decrofting where a croft unit is held in multiple ownership.

On 14 December 2012 Crofting Commissioners agreed to adopt a policy that all decrofting and letting applications in respect of crofts with multiple owners, must be submitted by all the owners, in their capacity collectively as the ‘landlord’ of the croft, even in those cases where the application related to a part of the croft held in title by only one of their number. This decision was based on legal advice obtained by the Commission but never published by them.

For the past two years many people have been affected by this policy decision and have been unable to decroft and thus develop land they own if a neighbour who happens to own part of the original croft unit is not willing to consent to the proposed development taking place. Mr & Mrs MacGillivray were in that very position. Their application to decroft land at North Ballachulish for house building had been rejected by the Crofting Commission because it did not have the consent of the landlord of that part of the original croft unit that remained in tenancy. Mr & Mrs MacGillivray referred the matter to the Scottish Land Court who decided that the Crofting Commission were wrong and it was competent for an owner of part of a croft to seek to decroft without requiring the consent of any other owners of the original croft unit. The Land Court took the view that the reference to a croft in the Crofting Acts applied equally to part of a croft.

The Land Court’s decision will have come as a relief to many who have been affected by the Crofting Commission’s policy. However, any hopes of an early resolution to their own predicaments have been dashed by the Crofting Commission lodging a request that a special case be stated on a question of law for the opinion of the Court of Session. It is now likely to be many months before a ruling is issued that will settle the matter once and for all.

Many crofting lawyers, including myself, have long held the view that the Crofting Commission’s policy was not a correct interpretation of the law. At the outset I called on this matter to be resolved before the Land Court by the Commission or action to be taken by the Scottish Government to do so. It is a pity that one affected party (there are many) has had to take the Crofting Commission to task over this whilst others have been left in limbo for over two years.

The Land Court’s decision was a clear, sensible and fair one. Even if the Court of Session ultimately were to take a different view, affected parties will continue to lobby the Scottish Government to amend crofting legislation to allow those who own croft land to be able to apply to decroft at their own instance. It is a problem that was highlighted in the final Sump Report as a priority one for the Scottish Government to tackle. They may, of course, not have to tackle it if the Court of Session agrees with the Land Court’s interpretation of the law.

N.B. Since this article was first published the Crofting Commission withdrew their request for a special case to be stated on a question of law for the opinion of the Court of Session. Therefore, the Land Court’s decision in MacGillivray v Crofting Commission (Application RN SLC/99/13 — decision of 18 December 2014) stands. See: Crofting Commission make a U-turn on Decrofting Appeal to the benefit of many owner-occupiers.

Download the Scottish Legal News Annual Review 2015 [via Calameo].

Brian Inkster

Should the Chairman of the Land Court be hung, drawn and quartered?

2 Replies

"should my friend the new chairman of the Land Court, Lord Minginish, be hung, drawn and quartered"

It would be unusual to penalise the Chairman of the Land Court!

The Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee of the Scottish Parliament were today taking evidence on the Scottish Government’s amendments to the crofting community right to buy at Stage 2 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill.

Eilidh Ross MacLellan will be looking at the relative crofting provisions in a little more detail in a future blog post. In the meantime I will just draw your attention to a particular highlight from today’s proceedings.

It was pointed out that Section 92 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 allows the Scottish Land Court four weeks from the hearing date to give its reasons in respect of a valuation appeal. A proposed amendment will extend that period to eight weeks. Should that extended timescale not be sufficient, the Land Court is to notify all parties of the date on which it will provide a written decision.

Derek Flyn gave his view on this:-

What sanction is available to parties if the Land Court does not do as instructed in the legislation? No sanction is included. If there is no result within the eight-week period and no information about when the written statement will be produced, should my friend the new chairman of the Land Court, Lord Minginish, be hung, drawn and quartered?

A good point. Derek went on to say:-

How the Land Court goes about its business should be in its rules and regulations. If it is in the bill, nothing will be able to be done about it if it goes wrong. It will just cause a legal problem that will go into the courts and stay there.

Hopefully the Scottish Government will endeavour to avoid such legal problems.

It was decided to ask the Minister about this one.

I trust Lord Minginish will not be in jeopardy of any penalties, especially of the medieval variety, by the time the Bill becomes an Act.

Read the Official Report of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee – 18 February 2015 [PDF]

Brian Inkster

Crofting Commission make a U-turn on Decrofting Appeal to the benefit of many owner-occupiers

2 Replies

The Crofting Commission today confirmed that it has withdrawn its appeal to the Court of Session in connection with the Scottish Land Court’s decision of 18 December 2014 in the case of MacGillivray v Crofting Commission. That case concerned the Crofting Commission’s policy on decrofting where a croft unit is held in multiple ownership.

This is a sensible decision by the Crofting Commission and puts the position back to what it was before they decided on 14 December 2012 to interpret crofting law in a way that I do not believe was ever intended by the Scottish Government. The Land Court decision was a clear, sensible and fair one and it makes much sense for the Crofting Commission to abide by it.

There will be a huge sense of relief amongst owner-occupiers of croft land who are not classified in law as owner-occupier crofters. They can now apply to decroft land that they own without requiring the consent of neighbours who happen to be owners of part of the original croft unit. The lack of such consent in certain instances was causing huge problems for many who have been in a state of limbo for over two years now.

The Crofting Commission in their official press release have stated:-

Due to the fixed deadline for submitting an appeal, the Crofting Commission submitted a skeleton appeal to provide it with sufficient time to convene the full Commission and allow it to discuss the implications of the decision.

The Commission met last week to review the case and it was decided to withdraw the appeal and accept the ruling of the Land Court which establishes that a single owner, as the landlord of their part of the croft, are entitled to submit a regulatory decrofting application to the Commission.

The Crofting Commission had originally found Mr & Mrs MacGillivray’s application to decroft land at 37 North Ballachulish for house building to have been incompetent, therefore, the Commission could not take a decision on it. The recent Scottish Land Court ruling found the application to be competent. No decision has been made yet on the merits of the application which the Commission will now have to reconsider.

The case challenged the Commission’s policy which was adopted at its Board meeting on 14 December 2012. The policy found that all decrofting and letting applications in respect of crofts with multiple owners, must be submitted by all of the owners, in their capacity collectively as the ‘landlord’ of the croft.

The Land Court has ruled that in a multiple ownership situation one of the owners can apply independently from the other owners where the application solely relates to the land that they own.

Crofting Commission Convener, Susan Walker said “The ruling has implications on part croft owners in relation to the requirement to register the croft prior to submitting certain regulatory applications. The Commission is working to align our policy to the ruling and will begin to process applications relating to part crofts from single owners.”

Brian Inkster

Decrofting Bill

2 Replies

It was announced today by Paul Wheelhouse MSP, Minister for Environment and Climate Change with responsibility for crofting, that the Scottish Government intends to bring forward a Bill, as soon as possible after the Easter Recess, to address the “flaw” in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 that “inadvertently limits the circumstances in which owner-occupier crofters can apply to decroft land”. Not so much limits than completely prevents as far as the information issued to date by the Crofting Commission would suggest.

I have, of course, suggested that the existing legislation can be interpreted in such a way to allow decrofting of owner-occupied crofts. However, with differing opinions (although the Crofting Commission’s legal advice remains unseen) it is sensible for the position to be resolved beyond any doubt. Properly drafted legislation will hopefully do just that. A reference to the Land Court under section 53(1) of the 1993 Act could have done the same thing. However, the Crofting Commission would have faced the possibility of being found to have got it wrong using that route so perhaps it was not the favoured one.

In response to a question from Claire Baker MSP it was clarified by Paul Wheelhouse MSP that:-

… we are not proposing emergency legislation; rather, we are talking about a short crofting Bill that will – with the will of Parliament – be subject to expedited procedures.

Tavish Scott MSP stated (following the debate):-

Crofters across Shetland are directly affected by this shambles, so I welcome the Scottish government’s commitment to bring forward a proposed law change after the Easter break, but I want this done quickly. I will certainly support legislation that solves the problem, but this uncertainty affecting crofters needs to be ended quickly and I am urging the minister to work with MSPs across Parliament to achieve cross party agreement on both the new law and the timescale. Speed is of the essence.

Whilst I would agree with these sentiments it is also important that the Scottish Government get it right. Thus the new Bill needs to be handled with care.

Dr Alasdair Allan MSP asked what would be done “to seek crofters’ views on the Bill’s content as it makes its way through Parliament”. Paul Wheelhouse MSP indicated that the Scottish Government would “provide due opportunity for scrutiny” and he would be happy to consider any particular suggestions on how to consult crofters in Dr Allan’s constituency.

Rhoda Grant MSP asked whether the Government would “publish its legal advice, so that solicitors can properly advise clients”. Paul Wheelhouse MSP responded:-

As far as legal advice is concerned, I am sure that Rhoda Grant knows the contstraints that exist in that regard. In progressing the Bill, we will try to make it as clear as possible why we think that the legislation is flawed and what we need to do to rectify that. We will try to give as much clarity as possible on the rationale for the action that we propose to take.

I am not so sure that constraints actually exist on publishing the legal advice given the circumstances that we have here. However, the reassurance of clarity being given is welcome in view of the fact that such clarity has been absent to date.

Jamie McGrigor MSP asked:-

Will the legislation clarify the legal position on decrofting a croft that has been divided? The Crofting Commission say that people who own part of a croft cannot decroft in that part without the concurrence of the neighbours who own the remainder of what was the original croft.

Paul Wheelhouse MSP did not have an immediate answer to this question but the Minister promised to write a letter to Mr McGrigor to provide clarity on this point and undertook “to address the matter”. This is an area where the Crofting Commission may well be misinterpreting the legislation and, if not, another area where the 1993 Act is unlikely to be following the intent of Parliament. It would therefore be a folly not to tidy this up at the same time. The consequences of the Commission’s recent policy announcement will perhaps not be immediately clear but I believe will, through time, come back to haunt the Scottish Government if it is not dealt with effectively and decisively now.

When questioned by Claudia Beamish MSP on the question of people who have already been granted decrofting directions not having title to their property, Paul Wheelhouse MSP stated that “title is not affected for people in that position”. I would beg to differ on that point (I believe titles could arguably, in certain circumstances, be null and void) and do not believe the potential title consequences were thought through by the Commission when it decided that what it was doing was unlawful. However, in his earlier statement Paul Wheelhouse MSP said:-

There are also over 170 cases, in which the Commission had already granted approval to decroft, in good faith, before this problem came to light.

In the Government’s view, it is essential that their situation is addressed as part of the solution, and I hope Parliament will support that.

If the legislation retrospectively legitimises these particular decrofting directions then any potential title issues should also be resolved.

I have previously suggested that decrofting applications by owner-occupier crofters should be processed to the point of issue (but not issued) pending a solution to the situation being found. It was good to see Paul Wheelhouse MSP endorsing this view but it appears to be dependent upon the Crofting Commission agreeing to such a course of action rather than being directed to do so. Let’s hope that they at least see sense on that front. However, in response to a question from Jean Urquhart MSP it was suggested by Paul Wheelhouse MSP that owner-occupier crofters should “wait until there is clarity, following the amendment to the law”, before lodging applications to decroft. If a decision is taken to process applications already lodged to the point of issuing a Decrofting Direction, but not actually issuing it until the remedial legislation is in place, then I can see no good reason for treating new applications any differently.

Tavish Scott MSP said (following the debate):-

I am very concerned that many crofters have little or no faith in the Commission.

They have an important regulatory role over crofting but their handling of this matter has brought real financial difficulties to many people.

So the Commission has a big task in re-establishing its credibility in the crofting counties.

Time will tell. In the meantime I will be following the passage of the new Bill with great interest and will, of course, provide my thoughts on it on the Crofting Law Blog.

Brian Inkster