Davidsons v. Logan [1907] ScotLR 142 (29 November 1907)

Davidsons v. Logan [1907] ScotLR 142 (29 November 1907)

The arbiters failed to determine the question submitted, having valued the obligation as if Logan were an outgoing tenant rather than as landlord, which is a fundamentally different and less onerous standard. The awards are also incompetent as they purport to be the joint awards of arbiters and oversman without proper devolution. Both grounds justify reduction of the awards.

Citation
[1907] ScotLR 142
Parties
Pursuers (tenants): Alexander Davidson senior and Alexander Davidson junior; Defender (landlord and Outgoing Tenant): Abraham Logan; Arbiter: John Watson; Arbiter: John Brown; Oversman: John Elliot; Defender (alleged Delegate): Robert Dodds
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 November 1907
Procedural Posture
Action of Reduction (challenge to Arbitral Awards) / Inner House, Court of Session (appeal/review After Proof Before Lord Ordinary)
Outcome
Awards reduced (set aside); pursuers succeed.
Legal Topics
Reduction of Arbitral Awards, Interpretation of Lease Obligations, Standard of Repair (tenantable Condition), Competency of Arbitral Procedure, Role of Oversman in Arbitration
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Scots Law Reduction of Arbitral Awards Interpretation of Lease Obligations Standard of Repair (tenantable Condition) Competency of Arbitral Procedure +1 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Davidson senior and Alexander Davidson junior

Pursuers (tenants)

Abraham Logan

Defender (landlord and Outgoing Tenant)

John Watson

Arbiter

John Brown

Arbiter

John Elliot

Oversman

Robert Dodds

Defender (alleged Delegate)

Procedural Posture

Action of Reduction (challenge to Arbitral Awards) / Inner House, Court of Session (appeal/review After Proof Before Lord Ordinary)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the arbiters determine the correct question submitted to them under the arbitration?
  2. 2 Was the arbitral award invalid because it was signed by both arbiters and the oversman without proper devolution?
  3. 3 What is the correct standard of repair required of a landlord at the start of a lease versus an outgoing tenant at the end of a lease?

Ratio Decidendi

The arbiters failed to determine the question submitted, having valued the obligation as if Logan were an outgoing tenant rather than as landlord, which is a fundamentally different and less onerous standard. The awards are also incompetent as they purport to be the joint awards of arbiters and oversman without proper devolution. Both grounds justify reduction of the awards.

Court Disposition

Awards reduced (set aside); pursuers succeed.

Orders

  • Decree of reduction granted for the arbitral awards challenged.
  • Awards Nos. 16, 17, and 18 of process declared void and set aside.