Estate landlord finally pays out to crofter it hounded 13/4/14
South Uist owner Stòras Uibhist has finally paid legal expenses to an elderly crofter
it hounded through the courts in a dispute over a tiny parcel of rough ground.
In 2012, the Scottish Land Court ruled that Murdo Mackenzie is legally entitled to
the tiny parcel of land surrounding the crumbling mill at Snishival where he grows
fruit and vegetables in polytunnels.
Mr Mackenzie who never claimed ownership of the mill fell very ill over the stress
of the legal action.
Stòras Uibhist hired expensive lawyers to try and seize the ground despite a local
petition urging the island estate to drop their controversial legal action.
In its findings, the land court stressed Murdo Mackenzie was a “reluctant litigant”
forced to “vindicate his rights” in court.
The land court was puzzled that Angus Macmillan, then the chief of the community
landlord body, personally got involved in the dispute.
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.
The court highlighted Mr Mackenzie’s win was “clear cut” and he was “wholly successful
in what he had to prove” at the court hearing.
It also threw out a bid by Angus Macmillan for expenses against his crofting neighbour.
Curiously, Stòras Uibhist did not chase their own boss for expenses even thought
his involvement stretched out the case.
The court said Stòras was “evidently prepared to bear” the whole amount of legal
expenses against them without getting Mr Macmillan to share the cost.
It also queried Mr Macmillan’s claim to have a neighbouring 14 acre apportionment
in the village because he failed to fulfil the Crofters‘ Commission conditions.
Stòras Uibhist has finally paid £40,456 to Murdo Mackenzie.
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.
Stòras maintained the apportionment was on private estate land and not crofting land.
It said it had a duty to protect what it believed to be the estate’s assets for the
community.