Sane Investments Ltd v. ASTRAZENECA UK Ltd, 03 May 2013, Lord Hodge [2013] ScotCS CSOH_81 (28 May 2013)

Sane Investments Ltd v. ASTRAZENECA UK Ltd, 03 May 2013, Lord Hodge [2013] ScotCS CSOH_81 (28 May 2013)

The expert reporter did not err in law in his draft report. The remit included professional fees, the tenant's redecoration obligation was periodic and not contingent on disrepair, and the claim for internal damp repairs was valid as the costs were reasonable and not excluded by insurance provisions in the lease.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_81
Parties
Pursuer: Sane Investments Limited; Defender: AstraZeneca UK Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
28 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Lease Dispute / Court Directions on Expert Report Objections
Outcome
Objections dismissed; no directions required to the expert reporter.
Legal Topics
Dilapidations, Repair Obligations, Professional Fees, Damages, Lease Interpretation
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Dilapidations Repair Obligations Professional Fees Damages Lease Interpretation

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sane Investments Limited

Pursuer

AstraZeneca UK Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Lease Dispute / Court Directions on Expert Report Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert reporter exceeded his remit regarding professional fees
  2. 2 Whether the tenant's redecoration obligations were properly assessed
  3. 3 Whether the landlord's claim for internal damp repairs was valid given timing and insurance issues

Ratio Decidendi

The expert reporter did not err in law in his draft report. The remit included professional fees, the tenant's redecoration obligation was periodic and not contingent on disrepair, and the claim for internal damp repairs was valid as the costs were reasonable and not excluded by insurance provisions in the lease.

Court Disposition

Objections dismissed; no directions required to the expert reporter.