SAPPHIRE 16 SARL (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORION IV EUROPEAN 16 SARL) AGAINST MARKS AND SPENCER PLC [2021] ScotCS CSOH_103 (15 October 2021)

SAPPHIRE 16 SARL (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORION IV EUROPEAN 16 SARL) AGAINST MARKS AND SPENCER PLC [2021] ScotCS CSOH_103 (15 October 2021)

The defender has breached the interim order by failing to re-open the whole unit (specifically the Mall entrance), failing to sufficiently staff and stock the store, and trading in a manner that is not in good faith but rather designed to do the bare minimum. However, due to some uncertainty in the order and reliance on legal advice, the breach is not found to be contempt of court at this stage.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_103
Parties
Pursuer: Sapphire 16 S.A.R.L (formerly known as Orion IV European 16 S.A.R.L); Defender: Marks and Spencer PLC
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Action (commercial Roll) / Interim Order Enforcement/contempt Hearing
Outcome
Defender found in breach of the interim order but not in contempt of court at this stage.
Legal Topics
Keep Open Clauses, Specific Implement, Contempt of Court, Lease Obligations, Retail Tenancy Enforcement
Landlord and Tenant Commercial Leases Contract Law Keep Open Clauses Specific Implement Contempt of Court Lease Obligations Retail Tenancy Enforcement

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

Parties

Sapphire 16 S.A.R.L (formerly known as Orion IV European 16 S.A.R.L)

Pursuer

Marks and Spencer PLC

Defender

Procedural Posture

Ordinary Action (commercial Roll) / Interim Order Enforcement/contempt Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender breached the interim order to re-open and keep open the whole of the leased premises for business during normal business hours as a retail store, sufficiently staffed and stocked
  2. 2 Whether the defender's conduct amounts to contempt of court

Ratio Decidendi

The defender has breached the interim order by failing to re-open the whole unit (specifically the Mall entrance), failing to sufficiently staff and stock the store, and trading in a manner that is not in good faith but rather designed to do the bare minimum. However, due to some uncertainty in the order and reliance on legal advice, the breach is not found to be contempt of court at this stage.

Court Disposition

Defender found in breach of the interim order but not in contempt of court at this stage.

Orders

  • Case put out by order for the defender to indicate compliance steps and for parties to address further orders.