Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v. Ravenseft Properties Ltd & Anor [2002] ScotCS 98 (8th April, 2002)

Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v. Ravenseft Properties Ltd & Anor [2002] ScotCS 98 (8th April, 2002)

The pursuers' pleadings invoking section 9(3) of the 1985 Act are relevant and sufficiently specified to be admitted to proof before answer, as the question of whether the omission was a patent anomaly recognisable by an experienced landlord is a matter for evidence, not mere construction. The evidence of the rent review arbiter on the hypothetical question of the rent review outcome is competent, as it does not seek to explain, modify, or contradict the award in proceedings concerning the award itself, but is relevant to the present rectification proceedings.

Citation
[2002] ScotCS 98
Parties
Pursuer: Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited; First Defender: Ravenseft Properties Limited; Second Defender: Douglas Shelf Seven Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Procedural Posture
Civil (rectification of Contract) / Interlocutory (debate on Pleadings)
Outcome
Averments invoking section 9(3) admitted to proof before answer; objection to competency of arbiter's evidence repelled; case to proceed to proof before answer.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Keep Open Clauses, Interpretation of Contracts, Arbitration Evidence, Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) (scotland) Act 1985, S.8, S.9
Contract Law Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Rectification of Contract Keep Open Clauses Interpretation of Contracts Arbitration Evidence Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) (scotland) Act 1985, S.8, S.9

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

Parties

Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited

Pursuer

Ravenseft Properties Limited

First Defender

Douglas Shelf Seven Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (rectification of Contract) / Interlocutory (debate on Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pleadings invoking section 9(3) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 are relevant and should be admitted to proof before answer.
  2. 2 Whether it is competent to lead evidence from the rent review arbiter on a hypothetical question regarding the effect of a deleted clause on the rent review outcome.

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuers' pleadings invoking section 9(3) of the 1985 Act are relevant and sufficiently specified to be admitted to proof before answer, as the question of whether the omission was a patent anomaly recognisable by an experienced landlord is a matter for evidence, not mere construction. The evidence of the rent review arbiter on the hypothetical question of the rent review outcome is competent, as it does not seek to explain, modify, or contradict the award in proceedings concerning the award itself, but is relevant to the present rectification proceedings.

Court Disposition

Averments invoking section 9(3) admitted to proof before answer; objection to competency of arbiter's evidence repelled; case to proceed to proof before answer.

Orders

  • Pursuers' averments under section 9(3) admitted to proof before answer.
  • Objection to competency of arbiter's evidence repelled.