ownership by 2020. The Land Reform Review Group was given the task of identifying how land reform would enable rural and urban communities to have a stake in the ownership, governance, management and use of land, assist in the acquisition and management of that land and promote new relationships between land, people, economy and environment in Scotland. Its final report, published in May 2014, recommended policies to modernise and diversify land ownership in Scotland and encourage sustainable development, some of which would form the basis of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016. During this period the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012 introduced changes to the conveyancing system in Scotland, with the aim of having all land in Scotland registered under the Land Register of Scotland within 10 years. Prior to the act, entry of land into the register would be prompted by a sale but other transfers of land would not prompt first entry. The act expanded the triggers for first entry to include any transfer of property or the signing of a long lease in order to accelerate the transition from the antiquated deed based Register of Sassines to the modernised map based Land Register. The Salvesen v Riddell case (2012–2013) In 2012, a section of the Agricultural Holdings Act was challenged and suspended by the UK Supreme Court. The trigger for this ruling was an appeal by Salvesen, the owner of Peaston Farm near Ormiston. The Riddells were tenants in this farm and Section 72 of the 2003 Act on a fixed term "limited partnership " tenancy. The original Bill in the Scottish Parliament limited the ability of landowners to terminate the tenancies of their tenants on such tenancies. Initially, the start date of this restriction was set to 4 February 2003. This led many landlords, including Salvesen, to terminate the tenancies of their tenants the day before – 3 February 2003. A later amendment to section 72 retroactively set the start date of the restrictions to 16 September 2002, which made Salvesen's termination notice ineffective, so that instead of the tenancy being for fixed period, it could become tenancy that could last indefinitely after the end of the agreed period, thus completely altering the original deal between them. Salvesen applied to the Land Court, which repealed his application. He then appealed to the Court of Session and obtained permission to