Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Ravenseft Properties Ltd & Anor [2001] ScotCS 176 (4 July 2001)

Co-Operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Ravenseft Properties Ltd & Anor [2001] ScotCS 176 (4 July 2001)

The second defenders' averments are relevant to the statutory requirements of section 9; reliance on the Minute of Variation can include reliance on its failure to delete a clause. The pleadings are sufficient to allow inquiry into whether the second defenders' position or interests were materially affected. The pursuers' attack on relevancy fails; the matter should proceed to proof before answer.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 176
Parties
Pursuer: Co-Operative Wholesale Society Limited; First Defender: Ravenseft Properties Limited; Second Defender: Douglas Shelf Seven Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Rectification Action (civil) / Interlocutory Ruling on Relevancy of Defences; Debate
Outcome
Pursuers' second plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed; expenses reserved.
Legal Topics
Rectification of Documents, Keep Open Clauses, Landlord and Tenant, Reliance and Material Detriment, Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) (scotland) Act 1985 S.8 and S.9
Contract Law Property Law Rectification of Documents Keep Open Clauses Landlord and Tenant Reliance and Material Detriment Law Reform (miscellaneous Provisions) (scotland) Act 1985 S.8 and 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 3 Authorities cited 3 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

Rectification Action (civil) / Interlocutory Ruling on Relevancy of Defences; Debate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defenders' averments are relevant to resist rectification under section 9 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985
  2. 2 Whether reliance on the Minute of Variation (or its omission) constitutes reliance for the purposes of section 9(2)
  3. 3 Whether the second defenders' position or interests have been affected to a material extent by reliance on the document

Ratio Decidendi

The second defenders' averments are relevant to the statutory requirements of section 9; reliance on the Minute of Variation can include reliance on its failure to delete a clause. The pleadings are sufficient to allow inquiry into whether the second defenders' position or interests were materially affected. The pursuers' attack on relevancy fails; the matter should proceed to proof before answer.

Court Disposition

Pursuers' second plea-in-law repelled; proof before answer allowed; expenses reserved.

Orders

  • Proof before answer on the issues raised by the second defenders' averments under section 9.
  • Pursuers' second plea-in-law repelled.