GEOFFREY (TAILOR) HIGHLAND CRAFTS LIMITED v. GL ATTRACTIONS LIMITED [2011] ScotSC 162 (11 October 2011)

GEOFFREY (TAILOR) HIGHLAND CRAFTS LIMITED v. GL ATTRACTIONS LIMITED [2011] ScotSC 162 (11 October 2011)

The sheriff was entitled to find that the appellants had not established a prima facie case that the respondents' trading activity constituted a fire risk or that the fire certificate required the entrance area to be completely clear. The documents did not support the requirement for a sterile area, only unobstructed escape routes. Therefore, refusal of interim interdict was correct.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 162
Parties
Pursuers & Appellants: Geoffrey (Tailor) Highland Crafts Limited; Defenders & Respondents: GL Attractions Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutor of sheriff adhered to.
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Fire Safety, Occupiers' Liability, Leasehold Rights
Property Law Health and Safety Law Interim Interdict Fire Safety Occupiers' Liability Leasehold 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey (Tailor) Highland Crafts Limited

Pursuers & Appellants

GL Attractions Limited

Defenders & Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' trading activity in the entrance area constitutes a fire risk justifying interim interdict
  2. 2 Whether the fire certificate and associated documents require the entrance area to be kept sterile or clear of all obstructions

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff was entitled to find that the appellants had not established a prima facie case that the respondents' trading activity constituted a fire risk or that the fire certificate required the entrance area to be completely clear. The documents did not support the requirement for a sterile area, only unobstructed escape routes. Therefore, refusal of interim interdict was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutor of sheriff adhered to.

Orders

  • Pursuers and appellants found liable to defenders and respondents in expenses of the appeal.
  • Account of expenses to be given in and remitted to Auditor of Court to tax and report.