Pik Facilities v. Shell Uk [2002] ScotCS 125 (3rd May, 2002)

Pik Facilities v. Shell Uk [2002] ScotCS 125 (3rd May, 2002)

Specific implement is not available to enforce lease obligations after expiry where the obligations were to be performed during the lease and the pleadings do not specify with sufficient precision the works required. The lease provides for damages as the remedy post-ish. The pursuers' pleadings are too vague for a specific order, but there is sufficient averment to allow proof before answer on damages for breach of lease obligations.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 125
Parties
Pursuer: PIK Facilities Limited; Defender: Shell U.K. Limited; Third Party: E Robertson; Biggart Baillie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil (lease Dispute) / Procedure Roll (interlocutory) Decision
Outcome
Claim for specific implement dismissed; proof before answer allowed on damages claim.
Legal Topics
Lease Obligations, Specific Implement, Damages for Breach of Lease, Dilapidations, Remedies After Expiry of Lease
Property Law Contract Law Lease Obligations Specific Implement Damages for Breach of Lease Dilapidations Remedies After Expiry of Lease

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PIK Facilities Limited

Pursuer

Shell U.K. Limited

Defender

E Robertson; Biggart Baillie

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (lease Dispute) / Procedure Roll (interlocutory) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific implement is available after expiry of lease for tenant's obligations
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings specify with sufficient precision the works required for specific implement
  3. 3 Whether damages are available for breach of lease obligations

Ratio Decidendi

Specific implement is not available to enforce lease obligations after expiry where the obligations were to be performed during the lease and the pleadings do not specify with sufficient precision the works required. The lease provides for damages as the remedy post-ish. The pursuers' pleadings are too vague for a specific order, but there is sufficient averment to allow proof before answer on damages for breach of lease obligations.

Court Disposition

Claim for specific implement dismissed; proof before answer allowed on damages claim.

Orders

  • Defenders' first plea-in-law sustained to extent of dismissing claim for specific implement.
  • Pursuers' first, second and fourth pleas-in-law repelled.