ARTICLE
4 September 2024

Land Court Grants Declarator In Dispute About The Status Of Land On Strollamus Estate, Skye

Sa
Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP

Contributor

Shepherd and Wedderburn is a leading, independent Scottish-headquartered UK law firm, with offices in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, London and Dublin. With a history stretching back to 1768, establishing long-standing relationships of trust, rooted in legal advice and client service of the highest quality, is our hallmark.
In MacFarlane (St Helier) Corporation v. Marie MacInnes and Others [2024] SLC 12, the Land Court ruled in favor of MacFarlane (St Helier) Corporation, declaring that land on the Strollamus Estate in Luib, Skye, was not subject to crofting tenure under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. Although several crofters objected, their lack of title or interest, since the land was part of a third party's croft who did not oppose, led the court to treat the application as unopposed. After evaluating eviden
United Kingdom Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Stephanie Hepburn acted for MacFarlane (St Helier) Corporation in a successful application to the Land Court for declarator that an area of land on Strollamus Estate in Luib, Skye, was not subject to crofting tenure and thus the provisions of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. 

MacFarlane (St Helier) Corporation v Marie MacInnes and Others [2024] SLC 12

Stephanie Hepburn acted for MacFarlane (St Helier) Corporation in a successful application to the Land Court for declarator that an area of land on Strollamus Estate in Luib, Skye, was not subject to crofting tenure and thus the provisions of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. 

A number of crofters objected to the application. However, as the objections asserted that the land in question formed part of a third party's croft (who did not oppose the application), the Land Court found that none of the crofters had the requisite title or interest to challenge the application. As a result, it was treated as unopposed. 

The Land Court still needed to determine the application on its merits. The Court acknowledged that it is unusual for an applicant in a court process to bear the burden of proving negative – that the land was not part of a croft or common grazings (whether apportioned or not). 

The Court considered the extensive investigations that had been carried out by both parties and found that the evidence submitted by the crofters provided only a very slight basis to rebut the inference that the land is not subject to crofting tenure. 

The Court did not find that evidence persuasive and the application was accordingly granted. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More