EDINBURGH WOOLLEN MILL LTD v. SURINDER SINGH + GALAB SINGH + DILDAR SINGH [2013] ScotSC 61 (12 September 2013)

EDINBURGH WOOLLEN MILL LTD v. SURINDER SINGH + GALAB SINGH + DILDAR SINGH [2013] ScotSC 61 (12 September 2013)

It is not reasonable to renew the lease as the pursuer craves because both parties are substantial trading concerns, there is no injustice or hardship of the kind the 1949 Act was designed to address, and the lease has run its contractual course with proper notice. The Act's purpose is not to regulate competition or protect large traders, but to prevent injustice to small shopkeepers, which is not present here.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 61
Parties
Pursuer: Edinburgh Woollen Mill Limited; Defender: Surinder Singh; Defender: Galab Singh; Defender: Dildar Singh
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Summary Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Lease Renewal, Tenancy of Shops (scotland) Act 1949, Reasonableness in Lease Renewal, Statutory Interpretation, Human Rights Act 1998
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Commercial Law Lease Renewal Tenancy of Shops (scotland) Act 1949 Reasonableness in Lease Renewal Statutory Interpretation Human Rights Act 1998

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

Parties

Edinburgh Woollen Mill Limited

Pursuer

Surinder Singh

Defender

Galab Singh

Defender

Dildar Singh

Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to renewal of the lease under the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949
  2. 2 Whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to grant a renewal of the lease

Ratio Decidendi

It is not reasonable to renew the lease as the pursuer craves because both parties are substantial trading concerns, there is no injustice or hardship of the kind the 1949 Act was designed to address, and the lease has run its contractual course with proper notice. The Act's purpose is not to regulate competition or protect large traders, but to prevent injustice to small shopkeepers, which is not present here.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Refusal of pursuer's application to renew the lease
  • Hearing on expenses to be fixed