“Land grab” crofting landlord ordered to pay legal costs 16/12/12
The community landlord of South Uist has been ordered to pay legal expenses to an elderly crofter it hounded through the courts in a dispute over a tiny parcel of rough ground.
In a damning adjudication against Stòras Uibhist, the Land Court has outlined its reasons why the landlord must bear the costs of a legal hearing it lost.
No expenses were awarded for an earlier legal debate so Stòras will have to pay the hugely expensive QC Sir Crispen Agnew out its own funds.
All in all, lawyers fees for both sides, and the cost of the court case itself, could reach £200,000. This includes the landlord having to pay its own QC and lawyers’ fees. The sum is about the equivalent of selling off 40 to 50 housing plots without making much of a dent in the 93,000 acres Stòras owns on South Uist, Eriskay and south Benbecula.
In October, the Land Court ruled that Mr Mackenzie was legally entitled to the crofting apportionment which he uses to grow fruit and vegetables in polytunnels.
Stòras Uibhist had hired expensive lawyers to try and seize the ground despite a local petition urging the island estate to drop their controversial legal action.
Angus Macmillan, the chief of the community landlord body, who claims to have a neighbouring 14 acre apportionment and has a croft in the village, also personally legally challenged Mr Mackenzie.
The Land Court previously queried if Mr Macmillan has entitlement to his own apportionment because he didn’t fulfil the Crofters‘ Commission conditions.
Now the court order means the community-
The court order document stresses Murdo Mackenzie was a “reluctant litigant” forced to “vindicate his rights” in court.
It points out Mr Mackenzie’s win was “clear cut” and he was “wholly successful in what he had to prove” at the court hearing.
The court also throws out a bid by Angus Macmillan for expenses against his crofting neighbour.
The Land Court stresses it is puzzled by the involvement of the chief of Stòras Uibhist.
The court order says it is “difficult to understand why he entered the case.”
It highlighted: “The whole thrust of his involvement seemed directed at disproving the first respondent’s (Murdo Mackenzie) case although that would not result in any benefit to himself that we can see, other than, possibly as a member of the public and a shareholder in the community company.”
It goes on: “Our difficulty is in seeing how his own interests differed from those of the applicants (Stòras Uibhist).
The Land Court said though Mr Macmillan’s involvement prolonged the case to an extent, it is “significant” that Stòras Uibhist weren’t chasing him for expenses and only tried to claim against Mr Mackenzie.
The court document said Stòras “are evidently prepared to bear” the whole amount of legal expenses against them without getting Mr Macmillan to share the cost, despite his involvement.
Angus Macmillan and Stòras both argued that the apportionment was not common grazings and never subject to crofting law and could not competently have been apportioned.
Each side are to pay their own lawyer’s bill for an earlier legal debate on the jurisdiction of the Land Court where Stòras hired QC Sir Crispen Agnew.
No one was available at Stòras Uibhist to comment. Previously it maintained the apportionment was on private estate land and not crofting land.
Stòras said it had a duty to protect what it believed to be the estate’s assets for the community.
Murdo Mackenzie said it was a “huge relief” the case was over and he wants to “live the rest of what remains of my life in peace.”