Crewpace Ltd v French & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_133 (12 August 2011)

Crewpace Ltd v French & Anor [2011] ScotCS CSOH_133 (12 August 2011)

The pursuers' pleadings are irrelevant and lacking in specification. The landlord's interest in the lease, where ownership is divided, is not common property in law, and each proprietor holds title to their own part. The pursuers have not established a legal right to object to the defenders' transactions or a basis for unjustified enrichment. The remedies sought are not competent in the circumstances. Accordingly, the action falls to be dismissed.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_133
Parties
Pursuer: Crewpace Limited; Defender: Mark Robert French; Defender: Mrs Rohaise French
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (court of Session Outer House) / Procedure Roll Discussion on Relevancy and Specification (pleas in Law)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Divided Ownership Under a Single Lease, Resumption and Renunciation of Lease Subjects, Unjustified Enrichment, Common Property in Landlord's Interest, Remedies for Breach of Landlord's Rights
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Agricultural Law Divided Ownership Under a Single Lease Resumption and Renunciation of Lease Subjects Unjustified Enrichment Common Property in Landlord's Interest Remedies for Breach of Landlord's Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crewpace Limited

Pursuer

Mark Robert French

Defender

Mrs Rohaise French

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (court of Session Outer House) / Procedure Roll Discussion on Relevancy and Specification (pleas in Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether owners of separate parts of land subject to a single lease are 'joint landlords' with common property in the landlord's interest
  2. 2 Whether one landlord can unilaterally resume or renounce part of the lease subjects without the other's consent
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers have a relevant claim for unjustified enrichment or interdict

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings are irrelevant and lacking in specification. The landlord's interest in the lease, where ownership is divided, is not common property in law, and each proprietor holds title to their own part. The pursuers have not established a legal right to object to the defenders' transactions or a basis for unjustified enrichment. The remedies sought are not competent in the circumstances. Accordingly, the action falls to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • First and second pleas-in-law for the defenders sustained
  • Pursuers' action dismissed