Bell v. Inkersall Investments Ltd & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_50 (12 April 2005)

Bell v. Inkersall Investments Ltd & Ors [2005] ScotCS CSOH_50 (12 April 2005)

The interim interdict was recalled because, although the pursuer had just enough on record to raise a prima facie case, the order was not sufficiently clear or specific, and the balance of convenience favoured the defenders. The defenders were pursuing due process in the sheriff court, and the interim interdict was causing significant practical difficulties in estate management and compliance with third-party agreements. There was no imminent threat of unlawful eviction, and the pursuer could continue his farming operations pending resolution of the dispute.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_50
Parties
Pursuer: Robert Bell; First Defender: Inkersall Investments Ltd; Second Defender: Prosper Properties Ltd; Third Defender: Michael Woodcock
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Interim Interdict (injunction) Proceedings in Civil Dispute / Motion for Recall of Interim Interdict; Outer House, Court of Session
Outcome
Interim interdict recalled
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Security of Tenure, Agricultural Holdings, Grazing Lets, Verbal Lease, Balance of Convenience, Specificity of Court Orders
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Agricultural Law Interim Interdict Security of Tenure Agricultural Holdings Grazing Lets Verbal Lease +2 more

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Bell

Pursuer

Inkersall Investments Ltd

First Defender

Prosper Properties Ltd

Second Defender

Michael Woodcock

Third Defender

Procedural Posture

Interim Interdict (injunction) Proceedings in Civil Dispute / Motion for Recall of Interim Interdict; Outer House, Court of Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer had a prima facie case for interim interdict based on an alleged lease with security of tenure under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the interim interdict were sufficiently clear and specific
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favoured recall of the interim interdict

Ratio Decidendi

The interim interdict was recalled because, although the pursuer had just enough on record to raise a prima facie case, the order was not sufficiently clear or specific, and the balance of convenience favoured the defenders. The defenders were pursuing due process in the sheriff court, and the interim interdict was causing significant practical difficulties in estate management and compliance with third-party agreements. There was no imminent threat of unlawful eviction, and the pursuer could continue his farming operations pending resolution of the dispute.

Court Disposition

Interim interdict recalled

Orders

  • Recall of interim interdict previously granted against the defenders from disturbing or interfering with the pursuer's peaceful possession of the lands known as and forming the Rigg Estate.