Bannerman's Trustees v. Howard & Wyndham [1902] ScotLR 39_445 (18 March 1902)

Bannerman's Trustees v. Howard & Wyndham [1902] ScotLR 39_445 (18 March 1902)

There was no evidence in the titles that Scott agreed to restrictions enforceable by neighbouring proprietors, nor was there a common building plan or mutuality. The assignation in Bannerman's title did not confer enforcement rights to Bannerman's Trustees against singular successors of Howard & Wyndham. The appeal was dismissed as the necessary legal foundation for enforcement was absent.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 39_445
Parties
Respondents: Bannerman's Trustees; Petitioners: Howard & Wyndham
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 1902
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Building Restrictions, Ground Annual, Enforcement of Obligations, Assignation of Benefit, Common Scheme
Property Law Building Restrictions Ground Annual Enforcement of Obligations Assignation of Benefit Common Scheme

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bannerman's Trustees

Respondents

Howard & Wyndham

Petitioners

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Bannerman's Trustees have the right to enforce building restrictions against singular successors of Howard & Wyndham under the titles.
  2. 2 Whether mutuality and community of rights and obligations exist to enable enforcement of restrictions by one disponee against another.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence in the titles that Scott agreed to restrictions enforceable by neighbouring proprietors, nor was there a common building plan or mutuality. The assignation in Bannerman's title did not confer enforcement rights to Bannerman's Trustees against singular successors of Howard & Wyndham. The appeal was dismissed as the necessary legal foundation for enforcement was absent.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and interlocutor of the Dean of Guild affirmed.