Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A PURPORTED DECISION OF THE DISTRICT VALUER DATED 13 APRIL 1999
[1] The petitioners are East Lothian Council. They own a dwelling house known as Catcraig Cottage, Barns Ness, by Dunbar ("Catcraig Cottage"). Since 1996 the petitioners have let Catcraig Cottage to Heather Lumsden and Andrew Ingle ("the tenants"), under a secure tenancy in terms of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 ("the 1987 Act").
[7] As I have already indicated, on 3 March 1999 the tenants served an application to purchase on the petitioners. When the petitioners subsequently instructed the District Valuer to determine the market value of Catcraig Cottage, as at 3 March 1999, they did not mention to him Blue Circle's expressed wish to purchase the coastal strip of ground, including the land upon which Catcraig Cottage is situated.
[18] As to the approach the Court should follow in a judicial review of this nature, senior counsel for the tenants referred me to Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (1990) 61 P. & C.R. 343 and in particular to a passage from the Judgment of Glidewell L.J. at page 352 :
" I venture to suggest that from the authorities generally, and particularly those to which I have been referred, one can deduce the following principles:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.