Official Report 101KB pdf
Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Notice of Potential Liability for Costs) Amendment Order 2004 (draft)
We have received a letter from the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry. Members will recall that a similar case arose in relation to the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004 (Notice of Potential Liability for Costs) Amendment Order 2004 (SSI 2004/490) and the 21-day rule. Members will see from the minister's letter that there are similar concerns about the draft Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 (Notice of Potential Liability for Costs) Amendment Order 2004. The minister is basically saying that he does not think that the 21-day rule needs to be breached. However, he is open to our guidance on the matter.
In this instance, it is more important that the legislation is changed and got right, rather than that the committee adheres to its normal practice of criticising instances when the 21-day rule is breached. I think that we should tell the minister, the lead committee or whoever is to receive our response that we consider it much more important that the matter be corrected, for the avoidance of possible legal action or disputes between sellers and purchasers. That is much more important in this instance than adhering to the principle of not breaching the 21-day rule.
I think that you are right. The legal advisers have highlighted the possibility of legal difficulties. Although I know that the minister has told us that he does not anticipate any such difficulties, I tend to agree with Christine May. What are members' feelings on the matter?
I agree with Christine May, although I thought that it was a good letter from the Deputy Minister for Justice.
So you think that our response to the minister should say that the 21-day rule should be breached in this case so as to ensure that we avoid or minimise any legal difficulties.
Yes.
Is that agreed?
Previous
Item in PrivateNext
Executive Responses