Crieff Highland Gathering Ltd v. Perth And Kinross Council [2011] ScotCS CSOH_78 (12 May 2011)

Crieff Highland Gathering Ltd v. Perth And Kinross Council [2011] ScotCS CSOH_78 (12 May 2011)

The defender was in breach of its obligations under the lease regarding ordinary and extraordinary repairs and maintenance, but none of the breaches, whether singly or cumulatively, were material so as to justify termination of the lease. The breaches did not go to the root or essence of the contract, as both parties continued to enjoy the use of the subjects for their intended purposes, and the defender demonstrated willingness to perform its obligations in the future. The absence of an irritancy clause and the long-term nature of the lease further militated against termination. Therefore, the pursuer was not entitled to terminate the lease.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_78
Parties
Pursuer: Crieff Highland Gathering Limited; Defender: Perth and Kinross Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Lease Dispute / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Action dismissed. Pursuer not entitled to terminate the lease.
Legal Topics
Material Breach of Lease, Repairs and Maintenance Obligations, Termination of Lease, Extraordinary Repairs, Listed Buildings, Common Law Obligations, Interpretation of Lease Clauses
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Property Law Material Breach of Lease Repairs and Maintenance Obligations Termination of Lease Extraordinary Repairs Listed Buildings +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crieff Highland Gathering Limited

Pursuer

Perth and Kinross Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Lease Dispute / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender was in breach of its obligations under the lease, including ordinary and extraordinary repairs, and general maintenance.
  2. 2 Whether any breach was material so as to justify termination of the lease by the pursuer.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of an irritancy clause affects the right to terminate for breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The defender was in breach of its obligations under the lease regarding ordinary and extraordinary repairs and maintenance, but none of the breaches, whether singly or cumulatively, were material so as to justify termination of the lease. The breaches did not go to the root or essence of the contract, as both parties continued to enjoy the use of the subjects for their intended purposes, and the defender demonstrated willingness to perform its obligations in the future. The absence of an irritancy clause and the long-term nature of the lease further militated against termination. Therefore, the pursuer was not entitled to terminate the lease.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed. Pursuer not entitled to terminate the lease.

Orders

  • Decree of declarator refused.
  • Decree of removing refused.