Alan John Thow against Paul Geoffrey Dale and another (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCPER 65 (07 August 2025)

Alan John Thow against Paul Geoffrey Dale and another (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCPER 65 (07 August 2025)

The court found that the 1991 plan is demonstrative only and not taxative, and the mutual access drive is not uniform in width nor is its boundary precisely defined by the hedge. The defenders' metal fence posts and dwarf stone wall were erected to protect their hedge and do not obstruct or impede the pursuer's access or enjoyment of the mutual access drive. There is no evidence of unlawful interference or encroachment by the defenders.

Citation
[2025] SCPER 65
Parties
Pursuer: Alan John Thow; First Defender: Paul Geoffrey Dale; Second Defender: Ishbel Helen Dale
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Pursuer's first, second and third craves repelled; hearing assigned on expenses.
Legal Topics
Boundaries, Servitudes and Easements, Title Deeds, Obstruction, Encroachment
Property Law Real Estate Land Registration Boundaries Servitudes and Easements Title Deeds Obstruction Encroachment

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan John Thow

Pursuer

Paul Geoffrey Dale

First Defender

Ishbel Helen Dale

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct legal boundary between the mutual access drive and the defenders' property?
  2. 2 Do the defenders' metal fence posts and dwarf stone wall constitute an obstruction or encroachment on the mutual access drive?
  3. 3 Have the defenders unlawfully interfered with the pursuer's reasonable enjoyment of the mutual access drive?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1991 plan is demonstrative only and not taxative, and the mutual access drive is not uniform in width nor is its boundary precisely defined by the hedge. The defenders' metal fence posts and dwarf stone wall were erected to protect their hedge and do not obstruct or impede the pursuer's access or enjoyment of the mutual access drive. There is no evidence of unlawful interference or encroachment by the defenders.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's first, second and third craves repelled; hearing assigned on expenses.

Orders

  • Repels the pursuer's first, second and third craves.
  • Ordains the sheriff clerk to assign a hearing in respect of the expenses of the action.