Duke of Argyll v. Campbeltown Coal Co., Ltd [1924] ScotLR 555 (27 June 1924)

Duke of Argyll v. Campbeltown Coal Co., Ltd [1924] ScotLR 555 (27 June 1924)

The absence of declaratory conclusions does not render the action incompetent where the facts are not complex or seriously disputed, and the defenders suffer no prejudice. The requirement for declaratory conclusions is a matter of practice and expediency, not absolute legal necessity. The action of removing is therefore competent in this case.

Citation
[1924] ScotLR 555
Parties
Pursuer: Duke of Argyll; Defender: Campbeltown Coal Company, Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 June 1924
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sheriff Court (removing Action) / Inner House, First Division; Appeal Against Dismissal at First Instance
Outcome
Interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; amendment allowed; defenders' second plea-in-law repelled; case remitted to Sheriff-Substitute for proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Lease Irritancy, Removing (eviction), Declaratory Conclusions, Competency of Action, Conventional Irritancy
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Civil Procedure Lease Irritancy Removing (eviction) Declaratory Conclusions Competency of Action Conventional Irritancy

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Duke of Argyll

Pursuer

Campbeltown Coal Company, Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sheriff Court (removing Action) / Inner House, First Division; Appeal Against Dismissal at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is an action of removing (eviction) based on a conventional irritancy in a lease competent without declaratory conclusions?
  2. 2 Is a declarator of the lease or irritancy necessary where the lease is constituted by multiple documents, including an unsigned draft agreement?
  3. 3 Does the absence of declaratory conclusions render the action incompetent?

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of declaratory conclusions does not render the action incompetent where the facts are not complex or seriously disputed, and the defenders suffer no prejudice. The requirement for declaratory conclusions is a matter of practice and expediency, not absolute legal necessity. The action of removing is therefore competent in this case.

Court Disposition

Interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; amendment allowed; defenders' second plea-in-law repelled; case remitted to Sheriff-Substitute for proof before answer.

Orders

  • Recall of interlocutor dated 28th January
  • Allowance of pursuer's amendment