STEPHEN JOHN SCOTT & SUSAN JANE SCOTT v. MR GRAHAM MUIR & MRS MAUREEN McLEOD BAIN [2011] ScotSC 192 (07 December 2011)

STEPHEN JOHN SCOTT & SUSAN JANE SCOTT v. MR GRAHAM MUIR & MRS MAUREEN McLEOD BAIN [2011] ScotSC 192 (07 December 2011)

The pre-irritancy warning notice failed to comply with the statutory requirements of section 4 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 because it did not specify the period for payment, did not break down the sums due, and included a reference to interest that could not be calculated by the tenant. The statutory requirements are prescriptive and must be strictly followed. The notice was therefore invalid and the landlord could not rely on it to terminate the lease.

Citation
[2011] ScotSC 192
Parties
Pursuer & Respondent: Stephen John Scott; Pursuer & Respondent: Susan Jane Scott; Defender & Appellant: Graham Muir; Defender & Appellant: Maureen McLeod Bain
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (summary Cause) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of 1 March 2011 recalled; defenders and appellants assoilzied (absolved); cause continued for expenses.
Legal Topics
Irritancy of Lease, Statutory Notice Requirements, Interpretation of Statutes, Remedies for Breach of Lease, Procedural Competency
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Civil Procedure Irritancy of Lease Statutory Notice Requirements Interpretation of Statutes Remedies for Breach of Lease Procedural Competency

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen John Scott

Pursuer & Respondent

Susan Jane Scott

Pursuer & Respondent

Graham Muir

Defender & Appellant

Maureen McLeod Bain

Defender & Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (summary Cause) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pre-irritancy warning notice dated 19 February 2010 complied with the statutory requirements of section 4 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 and was therefore valid
  2. 2 Whether the appeal could proceed on a new point of law not argued before the sheriff

Ratio Decidendi

The pre-irritancy warning notice failed to comply with the statutory requirements of section 4 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 because it did not specify the period for payment, did not break down the sums due, and included a reference to interest that could not be calculated by the tenant. The statutory requirements are prescriptive and must be strictly followed. The notice was therefore invalid and the landlord could not rely on it to terminate the lease.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of 1 March 2011 recalled; defenders and appellants assoilzied (absolved); cause continued for expenses.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Interlocutor of 1 March 2011 recalled