Patterson v Menzies [2000] ScotCS 325 (19 December 2000)

Patterson v Menzies [2000] ScotCS 325 (19 December 2000)

Given that neither party has an unassailable title and that Miss Patterson has a prima facie case for ownership, the status quo should be preserved pending resolution of the dispute. There is no compelling reason to interfere with the situation on the ground, and the interim orders are apt to restrain the proposed operations on the disputed land. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the interim orders.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 325
Parties
Pursuer: Hazel Patterson; Defender: Robin Menzies
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Interim Interdict and Order for Removal / Motion for Recall of Interim Orders
Outcome
Motion for recall of interim orders refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Possession and Title to Land, Prescriptive Title, Boundary Disputes, Planning Permission
Property Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Possession and Title to Land Prescriptive Title Boundary Disputes Planning Permission

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hazel Patterson

Pursuer

Robin Menzies

Defender

Procedural Posture

Interim Interdict and Order for Removal / Motion for Recall of Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim interdict and interim order should be recalled pending resolution of ownership of disputed land
  2. 2 Whether pursuer has a prima facie case for ownership of the disputed land under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours maintaining the interim orders

Ratio Decidendi

Given that neither party has an unassailable title and that Miss Patterson has a prima facie case for ownership, the status quo should be preserved pending resolution of the dispute. There is no compelling reason to interfere with the situation on the ground, and the interim orders are apt to restrain the proposed operations on the disputed land. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the interim orders.

Court Disposition

Motion for recall of interim orders refused.

Orders

  • Interim interdict and interim order remain in force restraining Mr Menzies from operations on the disputed land.