Prescription

Question 1

Barratt (Scotland) Ltd v Keith

Answer 1

1. A case about missives
2. There was an issue over whether a provision in the missives had prescribed
3. The provision was about the duty to deliver a disposition
4. The court held that that was the 20-year prescription
5. You have to look at the specific provision

Question 2

Watson v Shields

Answer 2

1. “Considering that we have occupied the subjects hereinafter disponed continuously since 1955, openly, peaceably and without any judicial interruption, but without a title to”
2. They admitted they did not have title
3. The effect of that can be seen on the face
4. The deed was self-destructive as it was clear the deed was invalid
5. It could not be a valid foundation writ

Question 3

Landward Securities (Edinburgh) Ltd v Inhouse (Edinburgh) Ltd

Answer 3

1. “… the said open yard lying to the west of said subjects and the access lanes and passages connected with the same but only so far as I have right thereto”
2. They are being cautious
3. This was not self-destructive
4. The words are not an admission

Question 4

Hamilton v McIntosh Donald Ltd

Answer 4

1. This case was about fields where there had been a foundation writ
2. The disponee had not done that much in the fields
3. There had not been extensive possession
4. The court still held that there was sufficient possession

Question 5

Wallace-Martinez v Nisbet

Answer 5

1. Involved a tenement in Edinburgh
2. The backgreen was owned in common
3. The default position is that the backgreen is owned by the bottom flats, but the title can specify that it is owned in common
4. One of the owners on the ground floor registered a non domino deed of the backgreen as if they owned the whole thing
5. They built upon the backgreen
6. There was litigation
7. Had there been sufficient possession for the right period?
8. There was evidence that the other owners came onto the backgreen

Question 6

The Board of Management of Aberdeen College v Youngson

Answer 6

1. A to A a non domino dispositions are invalid ex facie