Ininmonth v. British Aluminium Co., Ltd [1915] ScotLR 232 (17 December 1915)

The lease's provisions for compensation and rent deduction upon resumption impliedly excluded any right to notice for the tenant. Even if notice was required, the tenant had in fact received reasonable notice through correspondence.

Citation: [1915] ScotLR 232
Parties: Complainer: George Ogilvie Kininmonth; Respondents (reclaimers): The British Aluminium Company, Limited
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 17 December 1915
Procedural Posture: Note of Suspension and Interdict / Inner House, Second Division, on Reclaiming Motion
Outcome: Note of suspension and interdict refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; first plea in law for respondents sustained.
Legal Topics: Lease Interpretation, Resumption of Lands, Notice Requirements, Compensation for Resumption

Landlord and Tenant Property Law Lease Interpretation Resumption of Lands Notice Requirements Compensation for Resumption

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

George Ogilvie Kininmonth

Complainer

The British Aluminium Company, Limited

Respondents (reclaimers)

Procedural Posture

Note of Suspension and Interdict / Inner House, Second Division, on Reclaiming Motion

Legal Issues

1 Whether the landlord was required to give notice to the tenant before resuming possession under the lease
2 Whether the lease implied a right to notice for the tenant
3 Whether compensation provisions excluded the need for notice

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Note of suspension and interdict refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; first plea in law for respondents sustained.

Orders

Refusal of the note of suspension and interdict
Recall of the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor