A GROUP of tenant farmers evicted from their farms due to flawed legislation are entitled to limited compensation, a judge has ruled Six farmers are pursuing damages, saying their eviction is the result of a “flawed” law enacted by the Scottish Parliament in 2003.

They were all granted secure tenure after an amendment was made to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act. But this was overruled by the UK Supreme Court in 2013, who said it breached landlords’ human rights. This has led some landlords to serving eviction notices on the tenants so they can reclaim vacant possession.

All the farmers seeking compensation had previously held their tenancy in a “limited partnership”, which can prevent tenants enjoying long-term security.

But Lord Clark ruled the may be entitled to just limited compensation. He said: “In principle, in circumstances such as the present, the state should compensate individuals for loss directly arising from reasonable reliance upon defective legislation passed by it, which was then remedied by further legislation which interfered with the individuals’ rights.”

The judge said the principles that ought to have been established are recompense would be paid over specific losses directly caused to qualifying general partners as a result of reasonable reliance by them on having a secure tenancy and for frustration and inconvenience.

Lord Clark said he would reserve his judgment on that issue until the next stage in the proceedings.

During a detailed Court of Session judgment in the first stage in the case, which was raised by farmers Ian and John Paterson, of Glenree Farm in Arran; and others in Methven, Perthshire; Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire; Mauchline, Ayrshire; Haddington, East Lothian; and Selkirk, Borders, the judge held that claims made by limited partnership and partnership petitioners were irrelevant.

But he said that was subject to a counterbalance of taking into account the value of benefits obtained arising from any extended period of tenancy they enjoyed.

The amendment to the act was designed to provide this security – but the UK Supreme Court ruled in the test case Salvesen v Riddell it was not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court said landowners before and after a specific date had been treated differently, which amounted to discrimination.

Lord Clark said that in striking a fair balance and identifying principles to be applied over compensation the ministers would have been required to take into account various considerations. He said they included the contractual background and legislative changes and their effect, including the qualifying general partners acquiring secure tenancies without giving consideration and the enjoyment by them of several years of tenancy beyond what would otherwise have been the termination date.

But he said it would also include the general partners had, through no fault of their own, been put in a position where they might have made expenditure reasonably relying on the unlawfully given right, which they would not otherwise have made.

Lord Clark said: “It seems to me that all that the court can reasonably do is to establish the principles upon which the scheme of compensation should have been based but to leave for further procedure the question of whether, applying those principles, the claims of the qualifying general partners give rise to compensable loss.”