Hampden Park Ltd v Dow & Ors [2001] ScotCS 216 (3 September 2001)

Hampden Park Ltd v Dow & Ors [2001] ScotCS 216 (3 September 2001)

The real burden in question is negative in substance, prohibiting the placing of obstructions on the land. The interdict sought is negative in substance, prohibiting the maintenance of obstructions, and does not require specification of positive acts to be performed by the defenders. Therefore, the interdict is competent, even if compliance requires positive action.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 216
Parties
Pursuer: Hampden Park Limited; First Defender: Frank Dow; Second Defender: Stephen Conley; Third Defender: Hampden Cars Limited; Fourth Defender: Mount Florida Cars Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interim Interdict Recall Motion
Outcome
Defenders' motion to recall part (b) of the interim interdict refused.
Legal Topics
Interdict, Real Burdens, Negative Obligations, Remedies
Property Law Civil Procedure Interdict Real Burdens Negative Obligations Remedies

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hampden Park Limited

Pursuer

Frank Dow

First Defender

Stephen Conley

Second Defender

Hampden Cars Limited

Third Defender

Mount Florida Cars Limited

Fourth Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interim Interdict Recall Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether part (b) of the interim interdict sought by the pursuers is competent as a prohibitory remedy for breach of a real burden.

Ratio Decidendi

The real burden in question is negative in substance, prohibiting the placing of obstructions on the land. The interdict sought is negative in substance, prohibiting the maintenance of obstructions, and does not require specification of positive acts to be performed by the defenders. Therefore, the interdict is competent, even if compliance requires positive action.

Court Disposition

Defenders' motion to recall part (b) of the interim interdict refused.

Orders

  • Part (b) of the interim interdict remains in force.