Altnabreac station and the various legal disputes around it

[DDB]

While it is open can I ask can someone familiar with Scottish law tell us which side has backed down on this matter and possibly about what?

 

[norbitonflyer]

While it is open can I ask can someone familiar with Scottish law tell us which side has backed down on this matter and possibly about what?

All we are told is that "the motion enrolled by the defenders.... has been withdrawn" As this case was brought by EE, they are the pursuers (what would be called the plaintiff in English law), and Howe and Appleby are the defenders, so it looks like H&A have backed down.

But I'm not sure what that motion covered.

 

[Jan Mayen]

I'm not familar with Scottish Courts. May I ask what the phrase "The motion enrolled by the defenders, which had been opposed, has been formally withdrawn" in post 1559 means, please?

Many thanks

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm not familar with Scottish Courts. May I ask what the phrase "The motion enrolled by the defenders, which had been opposed, has been formally withdrawn" in post 1559 means, please?

Many thanks

Post directly above yours has the information that we do have available

All we are told is that "the motion enrolled by the defenders.... has been withdrawn" As this case was brought by EE, they are the pursuers (what would be called the plaintiff in English law), and Howe and Appleby are the defenders, so it looks like H&A have backed down.

But I'm not sure what that motion covered.

 

[hexagon789]

I'm not familar with Scottish Courts. May I ask what the phrase "The motion enrolled by the defenders, which had been opposed, has been formally withdrawn" in post 1559 means, please?

Many thanks

From what has been previously stated when there was another similar motion, essentially I read it that the defenders (Howe & Appleby) raised a procedural objection, EE opposed that.

There would be a hearing to discuss the motion and whether it had merit to be taken forward, but as the motion has been withdrawn there will no longer be such a hearing.

The previous time, IIRC, the Sheriff dismissed the motion at the hearing for it.

 

[zwk500]

From what has been previously stated when there was another similar motion, essentially I read it that the defenders (Howe & Appleby) raised a procedural objection, EE opposed that.

There would be a hearing to discuss the motion and whether it had merit to be taken forward, but as the motion has been withdrawn there will no longer be such a hearing.

The previous time, IIRC, the Sheriff dismissed the motion at the hearing for it.

Has this motion further delayed the hearing of the actual case, even if it has been subsequently withdrawn?

 

[Buzby]

Another setback for H&A but there must come a time where the additional costs of a withdrawn motion (at their behest) and will add to the already sizeable amount due should their action ultimately fail. This process has already racked up a sizeable amount in court and EE‘s pursuit of same. The other actions of course continue in parallel for later in the year.

 

[John R]

Thanks @hexagon789, that makes sense, and clears up the confusion in my mind too.

Does anyone know what court dates are currently scheduled, and for which cases, as it does get confusing trying to keep on top of what’s going on?

 

[styles]

At the last hearing, Ian and Elizabeth raised the topic of what they considered to be a new piece of evidence, namely some rights documented in the deeds for the schoolhouse next door, currently under offer.

They had missed the deadline Lord Lake had set for submitting any final motions to be debated, but they argued they didn't have time to draft the motion as the evidence had only recently come to light. Lake said he would consider the motion if formally submitted, to determine whether it had any merit for a substantive debate.

It appears as though this* was submitted, then withdrawn.

* we don't actually know what the motion scheduled for today was. This is just making an educated assumption.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

Thanks @hexagon789, that makes sense, and clears up the confusion in my mind too.

Does anyone know what court dates are currently scheduled, and for which cases, as it does get confusing trying to keep on top of what’s going on?

Tomorrow, 12pm, Inverness - contempt
21st Jan, Wick - Network Rail intermediate diet
19th Feb, Wick - Network Rail substantive hearing
30th Jun, Edinburgh (Court of Session) - EE most likely final hearing. There are deadlines in May for final submissions.

There are some TBC dates for hearings delayed due to the weather.

 

[John R]

Thanks @styles !

 

[Jan Mayen]

Thank you all.

 

[StuBeeDoo]

I wonder what tomorrow's hearing will bring?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

..........some rights documented in the deeds for the schoolhouse next door, currently under offer.

If I remember correctly, they were claiming that a specific clause(?) in the deeds to the School House meant that they should have been given first refusal on the property when it was put on the market - and they weren't.

(..... but this would have been a couple of months ago, and my memory isn't what it once was)

 

[Stathern Jc]

As always the informative contributions from @styles are much appreciated. His summary of current cases especially so.

Yesterday I had a look at the rolls for Inverness:


Probably getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here, but:

• Seeing "Appleby + others v Network Rail" gave me the impression that it is Appleby etc taking Network Rail to court, so possibly not the "Contempt" case.
• Also, this is one of 28 items on the Inverness Sheriff (Civil) Court Roll for 16th January (13 different "names" listed so several with multiple "issues"). So I wouldn't think that too much time has been allocated to this one even though it is described a a Hearing.

Someone more familiar will have a better idea of the process.

 

[EYFanatic]

At the last hearing, Ian and Elizabeth raised the topic of what they considered to be a new piece of evidence, namely some rights documented in the deeds for the schoolhouse next door, currently under offer.

They had missed the deadline Lord Lake had set for submitting any final motions to be debated, but they argued they didn't have time to draft the motion as the evidence had only recently come to light. Lake said he would consider the motion if formally submitted, to determine whether it had any merit for a substantive debate.

It appears as though this* was submitted, then withdrawn.

* we don't actually know what the motion scheduled for today was. This is just making an educated assumption.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==


Tomorrow, 12pm, Inverness - contempt
21st Jan, Wick - Network Rail intermediate diet
19th Feb, Wick - Network Rail substantive hearing
30th Jun, Edinburgh (Court of Session) - EE most likely final hearing. There are deadlines in May for final submissions.

There are some TBC dates for hearings delayed due to the weather.

Are there online streams for this as per the last occasion?

 

[najaB]

Probably getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here, but:

• Seeing "Appleby + others v Network Rail" gave me the impression that it is Appleby etc taking Network Rail to court, so possibly not the "Contempt" case.

It's listed as Civil so almost certainly not the contempt case.

 

[norbitonflyer]

As always the informative contributions from @styles are much appreciated. His summary of current cases especially so.

Yesterday I had a look at the rolls for Inverness:
View attachment 195913

Probably getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here, but:

• Seeing "Appleby + others v Network Rail" gave me the impression that it is Appleby etc taking Network Rail to court, so possibly not the "Contempt" case.
• Also, this is one of 28 items on the Inverness Sheriff (Civil) Court Roll for 16th January (13 different "names" listed so several with multiple "issues"). So I wouldn't think that too much time has been allocated to this one even though it is described a a Hearing.

Someone more familiar will have a better idea of the process.

I think this is Appleby taking NR to court for (allegedly) trespassing on his land. Not sure exactly what stage this has reached, but the issues seem to be:
Who owns the driveway next to Appleby's house?
If it is not NR, do NR and its agents and contractors have the right to use it to access the station?

I think it has been accepted that there is a pedestrian public right of way along the driveway, but Appleby argues that NR staff are not "members of the public"
There is also a "burden" (restrictive covenant) in the deeds which appear to give owners of the land neighbouring the driveway a right to use it to access their property (similar to the rights to use the Forestry Roads that lead to the station).

But Appleby also claims NR own no property in the area - he claims to own the whole station; not just the house and driveway.

Howe is named as a second pursuer (plaintiff) although the property is registered solely in Appleby's name.

One of the contempt actions arises from their recording of an earlier hearing, which they tried to use as evidence that an undertaking they had given at that hearing had been misintepreted in the written record. The other was because they failed to turn up at a hearing that they themselves had requested, but I forget whether this was in the EE case or the NR case.

In order to get my head round all this, I am trying to compile a timeline: we need to go right back to the terms of the original sale of the land to the Caithness & Sutherland Railway Company in 1874 to make sense of some of the arguments. I was able to glean a lot of data from the "uncovered" channel just before it was taken down, but I am now reliant on the videos published by the ABC duo, (of which there are now 100, totalling nearly 21 hours) and it's heavy going!

 

[Stathern Jc]

In order to get my head round all this, I am trying to compile a timeline: we need to go right back to the terms of the original sale of the land to the Caithness & Sutherland Railway Company in 1874 to make sense of some of the arguments. I was able to glean a lot of data from the "uncovered" channel just before it was taken down, but I am now reliant on the videos published by the ABC duo, (of which there are now 100, totalling nearly 21 hours) and it's heavy going!

Getting our heads round all this is definitely easier said than done.
Good luck. You certainly have more mental stamina than I!
I suspect it will emerge that somewhere there was a "cock up" and later a "conspiracy" which has now got well out of hand.
Think it will be better for all concerned when it has been sorted out and they can be put out of their respective miseries.
And what will we be talking about then?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think this is Appleby taking NR to court for (allegedly) trespassing on his land. Not sure exactly what stage this has reached, but the issues seem to be:
Who owns the driveway next to Appleby's house?
If it is not NR, do NR and its agents and contractors have the right to use it to access the station?

I think it has been accepted that there is a pedestrian public right of way along the driveway, but Appleby argues that NR staff are not "members of the public"
There is also a "burden" (restrictive covenant) in the deeds which appear to give owners of the land neighbouring the driveway a right to use it to access their property (similar to the rights to use the Forestry Roads that lead to the station).

But Appleby also claims NR own no property in the area - he claims to own the whole station; not just the house and driveway.

Howe is named as a second pursuer (plaintiff) although the property is registered solely in Appleby's name.

One of the contempt actions arises from their recording of an earlier hearing, which they tried to use as evidence that an undertaking they had given at that hearing had been misintepreted in the written record. The other was because they failed to turn up at a hearing that they themselves had requested, but I forget whether this was in the EE case or the NR case.

In order to get my head round all this, I am trying to compile a timeline: we need to go right back to the terms of the original sale of the land to the Caithness & Sutherland Railway Company in 1874 to make sense of some of the arguments. I was able to glean a lot of data from the "uncovered" channel just before it was taken down, but I am now reliant on the videos published by the ABC duo, (of which there are now 100, totalling nearly 21 hours) and it's heavy going!

No, no need to go back that far, although Appleby is trying to do so. In laymans terms (which is all I am) the current Land Registry record is final, a curtain is drawn over all previous information, trades, deals, swaps, winnings on the battlefield in card games recorded or not. If you believe there is an error in that record your option is to submit a 'case' to Land Registry stating why with supporting evidence. Appleby claims to want to do this on his certain belief that he owns the land for miles but has apparently made no progress in actually doing so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

And what will we be talking about then?

How much A + H are charging for use of their platform, per person, per visit.

 

[CEN60]

A sort of associated question :- NR were / are introducing "Request Stop Button Kiosks" at other request stops on the route. I assume this was not done at Altnabreac given the current "ongoing issues" ?

 

[norbitonflyer]

A sort of associated question :- NR were / are introducing "Request Stop Button Kiosks" at other request stops on the route. I assume this was not done at Altnabreac given the current "ongoing issues" ?

It was Scotrail's attempts to insatll this equipment which led to the dispute, firstly by preventing access via the driveway, and later via the quarry to the west of the station. This latter was an episode in April 2023 when Howe chained up a gate giving access to Forestry land where NR had been given permission to set up their equipment to power the kiosk (which would itself have been on the platform). Howe claimed it was her (or rather Appleby's) land. Contrary to some press reports, no-one chained themselves to anything

 

[CEN60]

It was Scotrail's attempts to insatll this equipment which led to the dispute, firstly by preventing access via the driveway, and later via the quarry to the west of the station. This latter was an episode in April 2023 when Howe chained up a gate giving access to Forestry land where NR had been given permission to set up their equipment to power the kiosk (which would itself have been on the platform). Howe claimed it was her (or rather Appleby's) land. Contrary to some press reports, no-one chained themselves to anything

I did wonder how it all kicked off - thanks. The word “ crackpot” springs to mind!

 

[styles]

As always the informative contributions from @styles are much appreciated. His summary of current cases especially so.

Yesterday I had a look at the rolls for Inverness:
View attachment 195913

Probably getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here, but:

• Seeing "Appleby + others v Network Rail" gave me the impression that it is Appleby etc taking Network Rail to court, so possibly not the "Contempt" case.
• Also, this is one of 28 items on the Inverness Sheriff (Civil) Court Roll for 16th January (13 different "names" listed so several with multiple "issues"). So I wouldn't think that too much time has been allocated to this one even though it is described a a Hearing.

Someone more familiar will have a better idea of the process.

The contempt hearings relate to the Network Rail case, which is confusing yes.

Most cases in these courts are done and dusted in a matter of minutes as people just plead guilty and get an on the spot sentence. Ian/Elizabeth's case is scheduled outside the usual 'done and dusted' hearing time and is likely to take perhaps a little longer.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

Are there online streams for this as per the last occasion?

Some of the hearings are being conducted via Webex, usually when Ian and Elizabeth can't make it in person. Sometimes these streams are made available to the general public, whether or not Ian and Elizabeth are attending remotely or in person (usually the case with the Court of Session).

You must however not record them. Which is actually one of the contempt issues Ian and Elizabeth are facing - having recorded an online hearing in a Network Rail case, after being told not to, and then even publishing it on YouTube. Their current position is that the sheriffs are acting ultra vires by bringing the contempt action after the hearing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

It's listed as Civil so almost certainly not the contempt case.

Contempt in Scotland can be civil or criminal. In fact the reason their last contempt hearing was continued to January was because there just happened to be a contempt expert in the court building that day who offered them on the spot unofficial representation and said the civil and criminal aspects should be considered separately, and the criminal aspects definitely couldn't be dealt with in that court that day. Yes, it is confusing!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

.In order to get my head round all this, I am trying to compile a timeline: we need to go right back to the terms of the original sale of the land to the Caithness & Sutherland Railway Company in 1874 to make sense of some of the arguments. I was able to glean a lot of data from the "uncovered" channel just before it was taken down, but I am now reliant on the videos published by the ABC duo, (of which there are now 100, totalling nearly 21 hours) and it's heavy going!

As much as I want to hear their side of the story, I honestly just can't bear to sit through some of their videos. They are so slow and drawn out reiterating the same point over and over.

Plenty of people are mocking them, but they may well turn out to be right. I will not establish an opinion that they're right by listening to one of the droning videos though. I find Ian's videos a bit more concise. If you're going to watch them I recommend changing the speed to 1.25x-1.5x.

 

[Buzby]

No, no need to go back that far, although Appleby is trying to do so. In laymans terms (which is all I am) the current Land Registry record is final,

I’m unsure why you believe this as there were truly many errors created when transferring the original Sasines Registry to computerised Land Registry (Scotland) and AIUI they’ve barely made a serious dent in transferring all Scottish properties over.

It was either too costly or they were not given a budget, but the system was modified so that old registrations were updated to the new system as ownerships were updated. Naturally, errors have crept in, and where a dispute arises (as here) it is up to a Sheriff to make a determination of fact. The LRS is simply not the final arbiter (and never has been). Many of the original records are fading, and coloured boundary delineations are suffering a similar fate. On a slightly related issue, the Schoolhouse is similarly in a similar situation, and I’m sure Appleby sees this as supporting his stance hence the ongoing hand-wringing.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I’m unsure why you believe this as there were truly many errors created when transferring the original Sasines Registry to computerised Land Registry (Scotland)

Because this particular property wasn’t part of any enforced transfer from the General Sasines Register to the computerised register. This was part of the process where new transfers of property would require registration on the computerised register; land not transferred would remain on the General Sasines Register.

Therefore this property transferred to the computerised register when Appleby bought the property. In turn, this means that the extent of what Appleby bought was set out in the registration application by his legal representative. If the platform etc is still on the General Sasines Register then he didn’t buy it, because if he had bought it then it wouldn’t still be on the General Sasines Register, it would have been subject to mandatory registration and it would be on the computerised register.

Appleby cannot own the land he says he does because the land is still on the Sasines Register. Appleby seems to believe that because the station cottage and the station platform were once part of the same parcel of land then they should still be part of the same parcel of land. Using his logic, this means that he owns the trackbed all the way to Georgemas Junction, which is clearly nonsense.

Whoever owns the land, it isn’t Appleby.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

the system was modified so that old registrations were updated to the new system as ownerships were updated

I can’t speak for Scotland, but in England and Wales it is the first registrant who tells the Land Registry what the extent of the land being purchased/transferred is. It isn’t a case of copy/pasting from an old register. The registrant provides the deeds and the title plan to the Land Registry.

So if errors have appeared then it’s largely to do with the legal representatives who dealt with the property transfers.

 

[Buzby]

So if errors have appeared then it’s largely to do with the legal representatives who dealt with the property transfers.

Perhaps so, however there have been similar cases where the computerised version does not chime with the Sasines Register, but if errors have crept in, then there is recourse to have a remedy. LRS is not the final arbiter in these cases, and it was this alone I was commenting on, not whether IA‘s claim was justified.

 

[Tetchytyke]

however there have been similar cases where the computerised version does not chime with the Sasines Register

Depends what you mean by the computerised version. The publicly available maps aren’t necessarily 100% accurate because of the way they are shown on the mapping system, but the title plans filed with the registry are definitive.

LRS is not the final arbiter in these cases, and it was this alone I was commenting on

It isn’t, but that’s because it can’t be if there are competing registrations or competing claims to the same land. If someone tries to register land that doesn’t belong to them, for whatever reason, then the Court will be the final decision maker as to the competing claims.

That doesn’t really apply in this case. There are only two real possibilities here: that the title plan filed by Appleby’s advocates was wrong, or that the station platform and connecting land was never included in the transaction.

Appleby doesn’t seem to be claiming that an error was made in the registration. He seems to be claiming that the station platform once belonged to the station cottage therefore it must still belong to the cottage. The posts from Connecting Dots (who was definitely absolutely not Appleby wearing a false moustache) earlier in this thread were very illuminating.

 

[peteb]

Came across this thread again today. Interesting to see that this case in Scotland is still grinding on. I wonder what the costs of the legal action(s) will be and who'll foot the bill?

 

[styles]

Came across this thread again today. Interesting to see that this case in Scotland is still grinding on. I wonder what the costs of the legal action(s) will be and who'll foot the bill?

Depends who wins.

EE are in the Court of Session which usually hears cases where the value claimed is six figures. My guess is their legal costs are much higher than £100k though, and this includes the cost of doing the mast maintenance by chopper, which is pricey. That's assuming EE win though.

Ian and Elizabeth will generally have quite small costs, as they've self-represented on the whole. They will have expenses to claim still but I can't imagine it will come close to the cost of transporting mobile mast materials by helicopter, or the losses Network Rail are claiming for example.

I don't know how much Ian and Elizabeth have squirreled away but my guess is that unless they have a lot of spare cash, if they lose their cases, they'll lose their house, though they won't give it up easily.

Do remember though that while most people appear to be against the couple, they could turn out to be right. If they are right they will be able to start charging the likes of Network Rail for using their driveway, so they'll be quids in.

 

[Buzby]

Appleby doesn’t seem to be claiming that an error was made in the registration. He seems to be claiming that the station platform once belonged to the station cottage therefore it must still belong to the cottage.

Considering there have been a great many station properties that have been disposed of by the pre-grouping entities, through to BR and successors, for those situations where the adjacent Stationmaster’s House is flogged off, rights of access to the PW and any associated platform infrastructure will certainly not be an oversight by the vendor.

I can certainly see how a simple sheet of paper outlining access requirements could be ‘lost’ especially when part of a property bundle. Appleby may be mistaken in his assertion and will cost him dearly should NR produce a copy, but I would have thought this might have surfaced by now. As @styles notes, it’s a balanced argument but we’ll need the Sheriff to adjudicate the various actions, and may win one battle but ultimately lose their war.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I’m unsure why you believe this as there were truly many errors created when transferring the original Sasines Registry to computerised Land Registry (Scotland) and AIUI they’ve barely made a serious dent in transferring all Scottish properties over.

Because, specifically related to this situation, Lord Lake said so.