H. E. Randall, Ltd v. Summers [1919] ScotLR 274 (04 March 1919)

H. E. Randall, Ltd v. Summers [1919] ScotLR 274 (04 March 1919)

The business of Gieves, Limited, as naval outfitters, is not of similar nature to the pursuers' business as boot and shoe sellers, despite some overlap in goods sold. The restrictive covenant was not breached. Even if there had been a breach, the pursuers failed to prove actual damage to their business, and their proper remedy would have been abatement of rent, not damages.

Citation
[1919] ScotLR 274
Parties
Pursuer: H. E. Randall, Limited; Defender: Miss Margaret Sibbald Summers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 March 1919
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved); interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.
Legal Topics
Landlord and Tenant, Lease, Restrictive Covenant, Remedies for Breach
Property Law Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Lease Restrictive Covenant Remedies for Breach

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

Parties

H. E. Randall, Limited

Pursuer

Miss Margaret Sibbald Summers

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease of premises to a naval outfitter who sells boots and shoes constitutes a breach of a restrictive covenant not to lease for a 'business of similar nature' to a boot and shoe seller.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers are entitled to damages for alleged injury to their business due to the breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The business of Gieves, Limited, as naval outfitters, is not of similar nature to the pursuers' business as boot and shoe sellers, despite some overlap in goods sold. The restrictive covenant was not breached. Even if there had been a breach, the pursuers failed to prove actual damage to their business, and their proper remedy would have been abatement of rent, not damages.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved); interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.

Orders

  • Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled.
  • Defender assoilzied from all conclusions of the action.