EDINBURGH TOURS LIMITED v. MR DIAMAN SINGH [2011] ScotSC 198 (15 December 2011)
The statutory and contractual provisions regarding service of notices must be read together. Clause 14 of the sub-lease, which allows for deemed service unless the contrary is proved, applies to the pre-irritancy warning notice. The respondent is entitled to lead evidence to prove non-service, and the sheriff was correct to allow proof on this issue. The appeal is refused and the cause remitted for further proceedings.
- Citation
- [2011] ScotSC 198
- Parties
- Pursuer & Appellant: Edinburgh Tours Limited; Defender & Respondent: Mr Diaman Singh
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 15 December 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor Allowing Proof on Pleadings
- Outcome
- Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; cause remitted for further proceedings; appellants found liable in expenses of the appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Irritancy of Lease, Service of Notices, Statutory Interpretation, Lease Termination, Proof of Service
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Edinburgh Tours Limited
Pursuer & Appellant
Mr Diaman Singh
Defender & Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Sheriff's Interlocutor Allowing Proof on Pleadings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the pre-irritancy warning notice was effectively served on the respondent in accordance with the lease and statutory requirements
- 2 Whether Clause 14 of the sub-lease allows the respondent to prove non-service and thereby prevent deemed service
- 3 Whether section 4(4) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 is a deeming provision for service
Ratio Decidendi
The statutory and contractual provisions regarding service of notices must be read together. Clause 14 of the sub-lease, which allows for deemed service unless the contrary is proved, applies to the pre-irritancy warning notice. The respondent is entitled to lead evidence to prove non-service, and the sheriff was correct to allow proof on this issue. The appeal is refused and the cause remitted for further proceedings.
Court Disposition
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor adhered to; cause remitted for further proceedings; appellants found liable in expenses of the appeal.
Orders
- Refusal of appeal
- Adherence to sheriff's interlocutor of 17 December 2010
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment