Hart's Trustees v. Arrol [1903] ScotLR 41_52 (05 November 1903)

Hart's Trustees v. Arrol [1903] ScotLR 41_52 (05 November 1903)

The loss of the public-house licence did not constitute rei interitus, as the subject of the lease (the shop) remained in existence. The lease did not terminate upon loss of the licence, as there was no express stipulation to that effect and the landlord did not warrant the continuance of the licence. The tenant remains bound by the lease and its obligations, subject to the landlord's waiver of the restriction on use.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 41_52
Parties
Pursuer: Trustees of the late William Hart; Defender: Archibald Tower Arrol; Defender: John Urquhart
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 November 1903
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to
Legal Topics
Lease, Rei Interitus, Loss of Licence, Frustration of Contract, Public House Tenancy
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Lease Rei Interitus Loss of Licence Frustration of Contract Public House Tenancy

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trustees of the late William Hart

Pursuer

Archibald Tower Arrol

Defender

John Urquhart

Defender

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loss of a public-house licence constitutes rei interitus, entitling the tenant to resile from the lease
  2. 2 Whether the lease remains binding on the tenant after the licence is refused renewal

Ratio Decidendi

The loss of the public-house licence did not constitute rei interitus, as the subject of the lease (the shop) remained in existence. The lease did not terminate upon loss of the licence, as there was no express stipulation to that effect and the landlord did not warrant the continuance of the licence. The tenant remains bound by the lease and its obligations, subject to the landlord's waiver of the restriction on use.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to

Orders

  • Defender Arrol to pay rent and maintain the premises in repair for the remainder of the lease term
  • Defender Arrol to stock and plenish the premises to afford security for the rent