Botanic Gardens Picture House, Ltd v. Adamson [1924] ScotLR 415 (18 March 1924)

Botanic Gardens Picture House, Ltd v. Adamson [1924] ScotLR 415 (18 March 1924)

The restrictions imposed by the 1876 disposition were not similar to those in the 1873 disposition; thus, there was no mutual enforceability of restrictions between the owners of A and B/C. The deeds of 1880, 1881, and 1922 did not validly impose enforceable restrictions on A in favour of B and C, as such restrictions were not contained in the titles of A. The Dean of Guild Court erred in refusing to consider the conventional nuisance clauses for want of jurisdiction; such matters are within its competence.

Citation
[1924] ScotLR 415
Parties
Petitioner: Botanic Gardens Picture House, Limited; Respondent/objector/appellant: Dr R. O. Adamson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 1924
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Dean of Guild Court (building Warrant Application) / Inner House, Court of Session (first Division) Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal sustained. Interlocutor of Dean of Guild Court dated 1 February 1923 recalled. Interlocutor of 11 January 1924 altered by deleting certain findings. With this alteration, interlocutor affirmed. Sixth plea-in-law for respondents and objectors repelled. Record opened for amendment. Proof before answer allowed...
Legal Topics
Building Restrictions, Mutual Enforceability of Title Conditions, Jus Quaesitum Tertio, Dean of Guild Court Jurisdiction, Conventional Nuisance, Community of Interest Among Disponees
Property Law Real Burdens and Servitudes Building Law Burgh Law Building Restrictions Mutual Enforceability of Title Conditions Jus Quaesitum Tertio Dean of Guild Court Jurisdiction +2 more

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Botanic Gardens Picture House, Limited

Petitioner

Dr R. O. Adamson

Respondent/objector/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Dean of Guild Court (building Warrant Application) / Inner House, Court of Session (first Division) Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether building restrictions in the 1873 and 1876 dispositions were mutually enforceable between owners of A, B, and C
  2. 2 Whether subsequent deeds (1880, 1881, 1922) validly imposed enforceable restrictions on A in favour of B and C
  3. 3 Whether the Dean of Guild Court had jurisdiction to consider conventional nuisance clauses in the feu-disposition of 1868

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictions imposed by the 1876 disposition were not similar to those in the 1873 disposition; thus, there was no mutual enforceability of restrictions between the owners of A and B/C. The deeds of 1880, 1881, and 1922 did not validly impose enforceable restrictions on A in favour of B and C, as such restrictions were not contained in the titles of A. The Dean of Guild Court erred in refusing to consider the conventional nuisance clauses for want of jurisdiction; such matters are within its competence.

Court Disposition

Appeal sustained. Interlocutor of Dean of Guild Court dated 1 February 1923 recalled. Interlocutor of 11 January 1924 altered by deleting certain findings. With this alteration, interlocutor affirmed. Sixth plea-in-law for respondents and objectors repelled. Record opened for amendment. Proof before answer allowed...

Orders

  • Recall interlocutor of 1 February 1923
  • Alter interlocutor of 11 January 1924 by deleting seventeenth and subsequent findings