Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association Ltd v. Reid & Anor [2006] ScotCS CSOH_56 (06 April 2006)

Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association Ltd v. Reid & Anor [2006] ScotCS CSOH_56 (06 April 2006)

The second pursuers were not validly appointed as factor because there was no consultation with the Property Council as required by the deed of conditions; thus, they had no title to sue. The first pursuers also lacked title and interest to sue under the deed. The claim for unjustified enrichment was incompetent as the parties' relationship was governed by the deed of conditions, which provided the exclusive mechanism for recovery.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSOH_56
Parties
Pursuers: Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association Limited and Others; Defenders: John Reid and Margaret Reid
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Opinion on Preliminary Pleas (motion to Dismiss)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Factor, Enforcement of Deed of Conditions, Consultation Requirements, Unjustified Enrichment, Title to Sue
Property Law Contract Law Unjust Enrichment Appointment of Factor Enforcement of Deed of Conditions Consultation Requirements Unjustified Enrichment Title to Sue

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association Limited and Others

Pursuers

John Reid and Margaret Reid

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil / Opinion on Preliminary Pleas (motion to Dismiss)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second pursuers were validly appointed as factor under the deed of conditions
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers have title and interest to sue for recovery of service charges under the deed of conditions
  3. 3 Whether a claim for unjustified enrichment is competent in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The second pursuers were not validly appointed as factor because there was no consultation with the Property Council as required by the deed of conditions; thus, they had no title to sue. The first pursuers also lacked title and interest to sue under the deed. The claim for unjustified enrichment was incompetent as the parties' relationship was governed by the deed of conditions, which provided the exclusive mechanism for recovery.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Defenders' preliminary pleas sustained
  • Action dismissed