Hillington Cash & Carry LTD against Shindo Kaur Kooner (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 24 (03 September 2025)

Hillington Cash & Carry LTD against Shindo Kaur Kooner (Sheriff Appeal Court Civil) [2025] SACCIV 24 (03 September 2025)

The appellant admitted the obligation to repair the roof, and the breach was established. The respondent was entitled to claim wasted expenditure as damages, as the breach rendered the contract pointless and the incurred costs wasted. The sheriff's awards were justified except for £1,200 for a preliminary inspection, which was not causally connected to the breach.

Citation
[2025] SACCIV 24
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Hillington Cash & Carry Limited; Defender and Appellant: Shindo Kaur Kooner
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Award of Damages After Proof
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; award reduced by £1,200; otherwise appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages for Wasted Expenditure, Lease Obligations, Repair Covenants, Measure of Damages
Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Law Breach of Contract Damages for Wasted Expenditure Lease Obligations Repair Covenants Measure of Damages

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hillington Cash & Carry Limited

Pursuer and Respondent

Shindo Kaur Kooner

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Award of Damages After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant breached contractual obligations to repair the roof and render premises wind and watertight
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to damages for wasted expenditure rather than loss of profits
  3. 3 Whether specific heads of loss (rent, professional fees, deposit, start-up costs, insurance, running costs, damaged stock) were recoverable as damages for breach

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant admitted the obligation to repair the roof, and the breach was established. The respondent was entitled to claim wasted expenditure as damages, as the breach rendered the contract pointless and the incurred costs wasted. The sheriff's awards were justified except for £1,200 for a preliminary inspection, which was not causally connected to the breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; award reduced by £1,200; otherwise appeal refused.

Orders

  • Recall the award of £147,701.73 and substitute £146,501.73.
  • Parties to attempt to agree expenses; failing which, further submissions within 21 days.