Cases Flashcards
1
Q
Nova Scotia Ltd v Henderson
A
[T]he disponee who has not registered his title enjoys no real right in the subjects. Scots law does not recognise a right which lies between a real right and a personal right ..There is no such thing as a ‘quasi-real right’
2
Q
Sloan’s Dairies v Glasgow Corporation
A
The default rule is that risk passes on conclusion of missives
*But note this is altered by provision in missives that states risk passes on DOE
3
Q
Welsh v Russell
A
Damages only remedy for breach of absolute warrandice
4
Q
Burnett’s Tr v Grainger
A
Nice guys finish last and don’t get the real right
5
Q
Rodger (Builders) Ltd v Fawdry
A
- There was contractual agreement (concluded missives) with B to sell. There was a failure of B to pay the price when they should have and A attempted to rescind the missives and instead sell to C. Disposition thus granted to C and C registered. C knew what had happened between A and B. Court held that there hadn’t been a valid rescission and so the missives between A and B were still good.
- C’s ownership could therefore be set aside by B on the basis of BAD FAITH.
- Note that C does become owner but under a voidable title that B can set aside.
6
Q
Wallace v Simmers
A
Offside goal rule can only apply where competition is between people entitled to a real right
7
Q
Brewster and Sons v Caughey
A
Bad faith at anytime before acquiring the real right counts under offside goal rule
8
Q
Sharp v Thomson
A
Held that the buyer’s personal right prevails against the seller’s receiver
- Unregistered disp due to negligence and attachment of FC from previous owner
- HoL held Thomsons were protected from floating charge on the basis that they had a BENEFICIAL INTEREST in the property and creditors didn’t - FC didn’t apply
9
Q
Burnett’s Tr v Grainger
A
- Couple buying property from Burnett. Transaction concluded in the normal way: payment made and disposition delivered but Grainger’s solicitor forgot to register and did it a year later.
-Later Burnett had become insolvent and her property was transferred to a trustee in sequesation.
-Trustee got onto the register (race to the register) therefore Grainger didn’t get ownership.
-HoL took a narrow approach to Sharp.
10
Q
Harris v Abbey National PLC
A
Bank repossessed a house and were deemed to possess the contents of a locked cupboard even though they didn’t know what was inside
- Were therefore liable for the contents of the cupboard which were damaged
11
Q
Watson v Shields
A
Positive prescription: non domino
- Disp stated he didn’t own property
= deed shouldn’t be self destructive
12
Q
Landward Securities Ltd v Inhouse Ltd
A
Positive prescription: non domino
- Disp said they weren’t sure if they owned the property
= held not to be invalid on the face of it so prescription could be founded on the deed
13
Q
Mackenzie v MacLean
A
Criminal case about the beer barrels that were sold on.
= abandoned property owned by the crown
14
Q
Shetland Islands Council v BP
A
Accession
Land owned by council - BP builds refinery on it
- Council owns land and then owns refinery the moment it is built due to law of accession
Leases
HELD - without agreement for rent there’s no lease. Parties agreed there’d be 23-year long lease but court weren’t willing to apply market rent so imposed annual rent
15
Q
Christie v Smith’s Exr
A
Summer house
- Held it had acceded to the land despite resting on its own weight - because weight was so heavy, this was considered sufficient joining to the land even though there wasn’t physical attachment
- the summerhouse also filled a gab in a wall around the garden = functional subordination element apparent too
16
Q
Brand’s Trs v Brand’s Trs
A
Accession
- where tenant carries out improvements, due to accession these become property of the land
- HOWEVER right of severance where tenant allowed to undo connection and take the things away
17
Q
Black v Duncan
A
= exercising and allowing dogs to do toilet is not ordinary use of a shared back green
18
Q
Cochrane v Ewart
A
Servitudes
- grant implied if servitude is necessary for reasonable enjoyment of the property
19
Q
Gow’s Trs v Mealls
A
Servitude
If there’s an alternative access route, unlikely court will order an implied grant
20
Q
ASA International Ltd v Kashmiri Properties
A
Coates bacon roll case (servitudes)
- court hesitant to provide servitudes where it hasn’t been done expressly
21
Q
Murray v Medlay
A
Servitudes
= no implied reservation as running water not essential for the house (v old case)
22
Q
Bowers v Kennedy
A
Servitudes
Access to landlocked land held to be inherent right of property
23
Q
Patrick v Napier
A
Servitudes
- sporting rights weren’t held to be a servitude as right to fish didn’t make property more attractive to future owners
24
Q
Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts
A
Servitudes
- timeshares, right to use recreational facilities held to be of benefit to all owners
= benefit still has to be to owners of the property at any time
25
Drury v Mcgarvie
Ancillary rights
= held reasonable for burdened proprietor to put gate up to protect livestock but as servitude owners, the couple could adapt the gate to make it easier to use
26
Irvine Knitters Ltd v North Ayrshire Cooperative Society
Servitudes
= only benefitted property may take benefit - cannot use the benefitted property as a bridge to neighbouring property also owned by benefited proprietor
27
Ruddiman v Hawthorns
Servitudes
- benefitted proprietor argued its ok to use property as bridge provided you take things onto the benefitted property 1st, do something legitimate them move it onto the neighbouring property
- court recognised that access is taken to benefited property in good faith then benefitted proprietor takes access route to do something legitimate
= held must be legitimate purpose and not a vice
28
Grant v Cameron
Servitudes
- authorised users of benefitted property (tenants, friends, customers) may also use the servitude
29
Dunlea v Cashwell
Servitudes
- deed expressed for residential use only and benefitted proprietor wanted to use it for diggers etc
= must be no increase in burden on burdened property
30
Carstairs v Spence
Servitudes
- where deed doesn't stipulate:
- change in use made of the benefitted property is not in itself and increased burden on the burdened property
-the extent of the prescription is measured
by possession
31
Kerr v Brown
Servitudes
- in passage servitudes (e.g aqueducts), change in type of thing passing through is an increase on the burden
32
Hill of Rubislaw (Q Seven) ltd v Rubislaw Quarry Aberdeen Ltd
Real burdens
= It is entirely legitimate to have a real burden have commercial benefit - court commented that this in turn can be praedial
33
Marriott v Greenbelt Group Ltd
- Housing development sell houses off but keep number of green areas, reserved to developer and sold to greenbelt to look after
- Real burden imposed on houses in estate that had to pay to upkeep maintenance of the green areas
HELD - praedial from both points of view
34
Castle Street (Dumbarton) Developments Ltd v Lidl GB Ltd
- Lidl sell land with list of supermarkets it can't be resold to 'for as long as lidl group own property disponed'
HELD- praedial in essence but as it stated it would only be in effect while lidl were owners, wasn't beneficial to other proprietors and so by definition wasn't praedial
*Also referrred to
35
Aberdeen Varieties Ltd v James F Donald (Aberdeen Cinemas) Ltd
'Four corners of the deed doctrine'
- burden referred to legislation but didn't cite the relevant parts
= should have put out all relevant parts in full in burden for it to have been upheld - all info relating to burden should be contained within burden deed
36
Baker v Lewis
Real burdens
= Has to be material detriment for a deed to be enforceable
37
Kettlewell v Turning Point
= Sheriff considered evidence to suggest that val of surrounding properties would go down by 15%
= material detriment and so sufficient interest to enforce
38
Franklin v Lawson
= Material detriment to other owners on basis that material is opposite of immaterial
39
Brown v Richard
= Case suggests that where you have properties subject to the same deed they are relative properties and so you are able to enforce burdens on properties also subject to that deed
40
Roebuck v Edminds
Pre-emptions
= where owner sells property without offering property to benefited proprietor offside goal rule applies
41
Ballentyne Property Services v Lawrie
Won't vary burdens where unreasonable to do so
42
PS Properties (2) Ltd v Callway Houses Ltd
When assessing how many flats are in a tenement, must look at the current state of the property
43
DH V SI
= Where tenement is a beneficiary of a decision not to pay a cost, their vote isn't counted when reaching that scheme decision
44
Compugraphics International Ltd v Nikoulic
tenements
= pipes couldn't be owned separately and acceded to the ownership of land but one could have a right of servitude over the pipes
45
Corrie v Craig
= Court granted order to allow fence to be built but only a regular fence (as opposed to what they wanted) because it would have been unfair to put unnecessary costs on their neighbour
46
Newton v Godfrey
Where common interest obligation not obliged with, one party can carry out work and then later recover costs
47
Thom v Hetherington
Common interest is a matter of degree
48
Anderson v Barattisanni's
- Chip shop flute (encroachment)
= HELD that the chip shop couldn't operate without the flute
- had been 9 years and was impractical to move it to another part of building - was on wall without window so wasn't obvious to other owners
49
Leonard v Lindsay & Benzie
Any encroachment is a delict. No defence that the encroachment is trivial
50
Duke of Beccleuch
Held to have impliedly consented to encroachment due (acquiesed)
*left it 30 years before raising an action
51
Strathclyde Regional Council v Persimmon Homes Ltd
= Held no consent to encroachment given because council were acting as public body when giving planning permission but in a private capacity hadn't consented to the encroachment
52
More v Boyle
- pipe ran though A's land and provided water to B. A cut pipe off.
= aemulatio vicini
53
Morris v Bicket
= must pass water on in same quality and quantity as you received it
54
Snowie v Stirling Castle
= originally sought declarator for 70 acres for privacy - reduced this to 40 = court grants 12.6
55
Manson v Midlothian Council
- house in penicuik
= Gate held to be unnecessary as was 20 meters from their house and they already had existing walls and fences
56
Tuley v Highland Council
- Held that prevention of access to particular path (because it was suffering erosion and continued use would make it worse) was for a valid reason and were otherwise allowing access
57
Aviemore Highland Resort Ltd
Fence existing before 2003 Act allowed
58
Marquess of Alisa v Monte Forte
- selling icecream to those on forshore
= held not to be recreation
59
Brown v Lee Constructions Ltd
Tresspass
- crane hung over their land and interdict was sought
60
Carruthers v Irvine
Duration of lease can be perpetual
61
Gbay v Edinburgh University
No rent or duration agreed but had agreed everything else
- court wouldn't impose 1 year duration because rent hadn't been agreed but would have had the parties agreed rent
62
Scottish Residential Estates Co v Henderson
Lady told she could use property until landlord needed it
= Because no clear duration agreed this was held to be a licence and not a lease
63
Advice Centre for Mortgages v McNicoll
Clear from precedent that right to buy was not inter naturalia of a lease and could only ever be a personal agreement between the tenant and landlord
He doubted that offside rule could be applicable as this would suggest the clause conferred a real right and it doesn’t
64
Gyle Shopping Centre v M&S
Leases - pro indiviso shares of land
= shop in centre had lease of unit but also held share in car park as part of their lease
65
Ross v Duchess of Sutherland
Inter naturalia
- discounted rent doesn't bind successors
66
Tucker v Nicholson
Inter naturalia
- clause allowing tenant to be compensated for any improvements/alterations not inter naturalia
67
Optical Express (Gyle) Ltd v M&S
Inter naturalia
- concerned blackletter
= even if it had been included in the lease doc it wasn't inter naturalia to bind successor landlords
68
Trade Development Bank (cases)
TDS had existing SS over land - landlord leases out without their approval = TSD could have leases set aside (voidable)
* Once you have your real right of lease it is a real right against SS holders and so offside goal rule applicable
69
Mars Pension Trustees v County Properties and Developments Ltd
= lease must make it clear they intend to exclude common law implied terms
70
Blair Trust Co v Gilbert
Leases
- periods of absence allowed but prison was a breach of possession
71
Mickel v Mccoard
- tenant who breaches obligation liable for damage sustained to property due to non-occupation
72
Wright v Wightman
Leases
= court can order plenishments
73
Cooperative Insurance Soc v Halfords
Leases
= court can order interdict to prevent displenishment
74
Glebe Sugar Refining Co v Paterson
Purpose of let
= standard required assumes reasonable use by tenant
75
Wolfson v Forrester
Lease
- no breach on behalf of landlord until damage brought to their attention
76
Retail Parks Investment Ltd v RBS
- specific interdict granted to force tenant to occupy, use and keep building open for public use
77
Highland and Universal Properties Ltd v Safeway Properties Ltd
Leases
- where clause is sufficiently clear and precise court will enforce
78
Dollar Land v CIN Properties
Leases
- landlord can keep windfall benefits from conventional irritancy
79
Maris v Banochory Squash Raquets Club
Leases (irritancy)
- fair and reasonable landlord test
80
Macdougall v Guidi
= sheriff court suggests that parties can contract out of tacit relocation but this is yet to be confirmed higher up
81
Rockford Trilogy Ltd v NCR ltd
- lease was coming to end and tenant said they wouldn't re-enter unless alterations were made
= held to be clear enough to act as notice
82
Canary Wharf
= Brexit as a cause of lease frustration held not to be valid
83
Visionhire Ltd v Britel Trust Fund Ltd
Commercial leases
- If rent review missed, landlord can still review at later date
84
Banks v Mecca Boomakers (S) Ltd
Commercial leases
- 1.5 years passed before landlord reviewed
= held to be too long
85
AWG Group Ltd v HCP Properties 101 GP Ltd
Commercial leases
= no right to waive rent review
86
Burgerking Ltd v Rachel Charitable Trust
Commercial leases
= where landlords give lots of individual reasons for saying no to assignation and subletting, only 1 has to be reasonable
87
Nisbet's Creditors v Robertson
Right in security is accessory to the real right in property
88
[T]he disponee who has not registered his title enjoys no real right in the subjects. Scots law does not recognise a right which lies between a real right and a personal right ..There is no such thing as a ‘quasi-real right’
Nova Scotia Ltd v Henderson
89
The default rule is that risk passes on conclusion of missives
*But note this is altered by provision in missives that states risk passes on DOE
Sloan’s Dairies v Glasgow Corporation
90
Damages only remedy for breach of absolute warrandice
Welsh v Russell
91
Nice guys finish last and don't get the real right
Burnett’s Tr v Grainger
92
- There was contractual agreement (concluded missives) with B to sell. There was a failure of B to pay the price when they should have and A attempted to rescind the missives and instead sell to C. Disposition thus granted to C and C registered. C knew what had happened between A and B. Court held that there hadn’t been a valid rescission and so the missives between A and B were still good.
- C’s ownership could therefore be set aside by B on the basis of BAD FAITH.
- Note that C does become owner but under a voidable title that B can set aside.
Rodger (Builders) Ltd v Fawdry
93
Offside goal rule can only apply where competition is between people entitled to a real right
Wallace v Simmers
94
Bad faith at anytime before acquiring the real right counts under offside goal rule
Brewster and Sons v Caughey
95
Held that the buyer’s personal right prevails against the seller’s receiver
- Unregistered disp due to negligence and attachment of FC from previous owner
- HoL held Thomsons were protected from floating charge on the basis that they had a BENEFICIAL INTEREST in the property and creditors didn’t - FC didn't apply
Sharp v Thomson
96
- Couple buying property from Burnett. Transaction concluded in the normal way: payment made and disposition delivered but Grainger’s solicitor forgot to register and did it a year later.
-Later Burnett had become insolvent and her property was transferred to a trustee in sequesation.
-Trustee got onto the register (race to the register) therefore Grainger didn’t get ownership.
-HoL took a narrow approach to Sharp.
Burnett’s Tr v Grainger
97
Bank repossessed a house and were deemed to possess the contents of a locked cupboard even though they didn't know what was inside
- Were therefore liable for the contents of the cupboard which were damaged
Harris v Abbey National PLC
98
Positive prescription: non domino
- Disp stated he didn't own property
= deed shouldn't be self destructive
Watson v Shields
99
Positive prescription: non domino
- Disp said they weren't sure if they owned the property
= held not to be invalid on the face of it so prescription could be founded on the deed
Landward Securities Ltd v Inhouse Ltd
100
Criminal case about the beer barrels that were sold on.
= abandoned property owned by the crown
Mackenzie v MacLean
101
Accession
Land owned by council - BP builds refinery on it
- Council owns land and then owns refinery the moment it is built due to law of accession
Leases
HELD - without agreement for rent there's no lease. Parties agreed there'd be 23-year long lease but court weren't willing to apply market rent so imposed annual rent
Shetland Islands Council v BP
102
Summer house
- Held it had acceded to the land despite resting on its own weight - because weight was so heavy, this was considered sufficient joining to the land even though there wasn't physical attachment
- the summerhouse also filled a gab in a wall around the garden = functional subordination element apparent too
Christie v Smith's Exr
103
Accession
- where tenant carries out improvements, due to accession these become property of the land
- HOWEVER right of severance where tenant allowed to undo connection and take the things away
Brand's Trs v Brand's Trs
104
= exercising and allowing dogs to do toilet is not ordinary use of a shared back green
Black v Duncan
105
Servitudes
- grant implied if servitude is necessary for reasonable enjoyment of the property
Cochrane v Ewart
106
Servitude
If there's an alternative access route, unlikely court will order an implied grant
Gow's Trs v Mealls
107
Coates bacon roll case (servitudes)
- court hesitant to provide servitudes where it hasn't been done expressly
ASA International Ltd v Kashmiri Properties
108
Servitudes
= no implied reservation as running water not essential for the house (v old case)
Murray v Medlay
109
Servitudes
Access to landlocked land held to be inherent right of property
Bowers v Kennedy
110
Servitudes
- sporting rights weren't held to be a servitude as right to fish didn't make property more attractive to future owners
Patrick v Napier
111
Servitudes
- timeshares, right to use recreational facilities held to be of benefit to all owners
= benefit still has to be to owners of the property at any time
Regency Villas Ltd v Diamond Resorts
112
Ancillary rights
= held reasonable for burdened proprietor to put gate up to protect livestock but as servitude owners, the couple could adapt the gate to make it easier to use
Drury v Mcgarvie
113
Servitudes
= only benefitted property may take benefit - cannot use the benefitted property as a bridge to neighbouring property also owned by benefited proprietor
Irvine Knitters Ltd v North Ayrshire Cooperative Society
114
Servitudes
- benefitted proprietor argued its ok to use property as bridge provided you take things onto the benefitted property 1st, do something legitimate them move it onto the neighbouring property
- court recognised that access is taken to benefited property in good faith then benefitted proprietor takes access route to do something legitimate
= held must be legitimate purpose and not a vice
Ruddiman v Hawthorns
115
Servitudes
- authorised users of benefitted property (tenants, friends, customers) may also use the servitude
Grant v Cameron
116
Servitudes
- deed expressed for residential use only and benefitted proprietor wanted to use it for diggers etc
= must be no increase in burden on burdened property
Dunlea v Cashwell
117
Servitudes
- where deed doesn't stipulate:
- change in use made of the benefitted property is not in itself and increased burden on the burdened property
-the extent of the prescription is measured
by possession
Carstairs v Spence
118
Servitudes
- in passage servitudes (e.g aqueducts), change in type of thing passing through is an increase on the burden
Kerr v Brown
119
Real burdens
= It is entirely legitimate to have a real burden have commercial benefit - court commented that this in turn can be praedial
Hill of Rubislaw (Q Seven) ltd v Rubislaw Quarry Aberdeen Ltd
120
- Housing development sell houses off but keep number of green areas, reserved to developer and sold to greenbelt to look after
- Real burden imposed on houses in estate that had to pay to upkeep maintenance of the green areas
HELD - praedial from both points of view
Marriott v Greenbelt Group Ltd
121
- Lidl sell land with list of supermarkets it can't be resold to 'for as long as lidl group own property disponed'
HELD- praedial in essence but as it stated it would only be in effect while lidl were owners, wasn't beneficial to other proprietors and so by definition wasn't praedial
*Also referrred to
Castle Street (Dumbarton) Developments Ltd v Lidl GB Ltd
122
'Four corners of the deed doctrine'
- burden referred to legislation but didn't cite the relevant parts
= should have put out all relevant parts in full in burden for it to have been upheld - all info relating to burden should be contained within burden deed
Aberdeen Varieties Ltd v James F Donald (Aberdeen Cinemas) Ltd
123
Real burdens
= Has to be material detriment for a deed to be enforceable
Baker v Lewis
124
= Sheriff considered evidence to suggest that val of surrounding properties would go down by 15%
= material detriment and so sufficient interest to enforce
Kettlewell v Turning Point
125
= Material detriment to other owners on basis that material is opposite of immaterial
Franklin v Lawson
126
= Case suggests that where you have properties subject to the same deed they are relative properties and so you are able to enforce burdens on properties also subject to that deed
Brown v Richard
127
Pre-emptions
= where owner sells property without offering property to benefited proprietor offside goal rule applies
Roebuck v Edminds
128
Won't vary burdens where unreasonable to do so
Ballentyne Property Services v Lawrie
129
When assessing how many flats are in a tenement, must look at the current state of the property
PS Properties (2) Ltd v Callway Houses Ltd
130
= Where tenement is a beneficiary of a decision not to pay a cost, their vote isn't counted when reaching that scheme decision
DH V SI
131
tenements
= pipes couldn't be owned separately and acceded to the ownership of land but one could have a right of servitude over the pipes
Compugraphics International Ltd v Nikoulic
132
= Court granted order to allow fence to be built but only a regular fence (as opposed to what they wanted) because it would have been unfair to put unnecessary costs on their neighbour
Corrie v Craig
133
Where common interest obligation not obliged with, one party can carry out work and then later recover costs
Newton v Godfrey
134
Common interest is a matter of degree
Thom v Hetherington
135
- Chip shop flute (encroachment)
= HELD that the chip shop couldn't operate without the flute
- had been 9 years and was impractical to move it to another part of building - was on wall without window so wasn't obvious to other owners
Anderson v Barattisanni's
136
Any encroachment is a delict. No defence that the encroachment is trivial
Leonard v Lindsay & Benzie
137
Held to have impliedly consented to encroachment due (acquiesed)
*left it 30 years before raising an action
Duke of Beccleuch
138
= Held no consent to encroachment given because council were acting as public body when giving planning permission but in a private capacity hadn't consented to the encroachment
Strathclyde Regional Council v Persimmon Homes Ltd
139
- pipe ran though A's land and provided water to B. A cut pipe off.
= aemulatio vicini
More v Boyle
140
= must pass water on in same quality and quantity as you received it
Morris v Bicket
141
= originally sought declarator for 70 acres for privacy - reduced this to 40 = court grants 12.6
Snowie v Stirling Castle
142
- house in penicuik
= Gate held to be unnecessary as was 20 meters from their house and they already had existing walls and fences
Manson v Midlothian Council
143
- Held that prevention of access to particular path (because it was suffering erosion and continued use would make it worse) was for a valid reason and were otherwise allowing access
Tuley v Highland Council
144
Fence existing before 2003 Act allowed
Aviemore Highland Resort Ltd
145
- selling icecream to those on forshore
= held not to be recreation
Marquess of Alisa v Monte Forte
146
Tresspass
- crane hung over their land and interdict was sought
Brown v Lee Constructions Ltd
147
Duration of lease can be perpetual
Carruthers v Irvine
148
No rent or duration agreed but had agreed everything else
- court wouldn't impose 1 year duration because rent hadn't been agreed but would have had the parties agreed rent
Gbay v Edinburgh University
149
Lady told she could use property until landlord needed it
= Because no clear duration agreed this was held to be a licence and not a lease
Scottish Residential Estates Co v Henderson
150
Clear from precedent that right to buy was not inter naturalia of a lease and could only ever be a personal agreement between the tenant and landlord
He doubted that offside rule could be applicable as this would suggest the clause conferred a real right and it doesn’t
Advice Centre for Mortgages v McNicoll
151
Leases - pro indiviso shares of land
= shop in centre had lease of unit but also held share in car park as part of their lease
Gyle Shopping Centre v M&S
152
Inter naturalia
- discounted rent doesn't bind successors
Ross v Duchess of Sutherland
153
Inter naturalia
- clause allowing tenant to be compensated for any improvements/alterations not inter naturalia
Tucker v Nicholson
154
Inter naturalia
- concerned blackletter
= even if it had been included in the lease doc it wasn't inter naturalia to bind successor landlords
Optical Express (Gyle) Ltd v M&S
155
Trade Development Bank had existing SS over land - landlord leases out without their approval = TDB could have leases set aside (voidable)
* Once you have your real right of lease it is a real right against SS holders and so offside goal rule applicable
Trade Development Bank (cases)
156
= lease must make it clear they intend to exclude common law implied terms
Mars Pension Trustees v County Properties and Developments Ltd
157
Leases
- periods of absence allowed but prison was a breach of possession
Blair Trust Co v Gilbert
158
- tenant who breaches obligation liable for damage sustained to property due to non-occupation
Mickel v Mccoard
159
Leases
= court can order plenishments
Wright v Wightman
160
Leases
= court can order interdict to prevent displenishment
Cooperative Insurance Soc v Halfords
161
Purpose of let
= standard required assumes reasonable use by tenant
Glebe Sugar Refining Co v Paterson
162
Lease
- no breach on behalf of landlord until damage brought to their attention
Wolfson v Forrester
163
- specific interdict granted to force tenant to occupy, use and keep building open for public use
Retail Parks Investment Ltd v RBS
164
Leases
- where clause is sufficiently clear and precise court will enforce
Highland and Universal Properties Ltd v Safeway Properties Ltd
165
Leases
- landlord can keep windfall benefits from conventional irritancy
Dollar Land v CIN Properties
166
Leases (irritancy)
- fair and reasonable landlord test
Maris v Banochory Squash Raquets Club
167
= sheriff court suggests that parties can contract out of tacit relocation but this is yet to be confirmed higher up
Macdougall v Guidi
168
- lease was coming to end and tenant said they wouldn't re-enter unless alterations were made
= held to be clear enough to act as notice
Rockford Trilogy Ltd v NCR ltd
169
= Brexit as a cause of lease frustration held not to be valid
Canary Wharf
170
Commercial leases
- If rent review missed, landlord can still review at later date
Visionhire Ltd v Britel Trust Fund Ltd
171
Commercial leases
- 1.5 years passed before landlord reviewed
= held to be too long
Banks v Mecca Boomakers (S) Ltd
172
Commercial leases
= no right to waive rent review
AWG Group Ltd v HCP Properties 101 GP Ltd
173
Commercial leases
= where landlords give lots of individual reasons for saying no to assignation and subletting, only 1 has to be reasonable
Burgerking Ltd v Rachel Charitable Trust
174
Right in security is accessory to the real right in property
Nisbet's Creditors v Robertson
175
Moncrieff v Jamieson
Servitudes
- Because the parking was necessary, a right to parking could be held alongside an access right.
176
Servitudes
- Because the parking was necessary, a right to parking could be held alongside an access right.
Moncrieff v Jamieson
177
Thom v Macbeth
The primary right is to have the property
physically divided, but where (as is usually the case) division does not make
economic sense the right is
to have the property sold and the proceeds of sale divided
178
Menzies v Macdonald
Pro indiviso shares can be transferred, burdened, or indeed subdivided
179
Aberdeenshire County Council v Lord Glentanar
Public right of way
Bicycle not held to amount to vehicular use
180
The primary right is to have the property
physically divided, but where (as is usually the case) division does not make
economic sense the right is
to have the property sold and the proceeds of sale divided
Thom v Macbeth
181
Pro indiviso shares can be transferred, burdened, or indeed subdivided
Menzies v Macdonald
182
Public right of way
Bicycle not held to amount to vehicular use
Aberdeenshire County Council v Lord Glentanar
183
Gloag v Perth & Kinross Council
Castle
Granted 14 out of 23 acres requested
184
Castle
Granted 14 out of 23 acres requested
Gloag v Perth & Kinross Council
