Age Ltd, Re Application For Judicial Review [2000] ScotCS 219 (8 August 2000)

Age Ltd, Re Application For Judicial Review [2000] ScotCS 219 (8 August 2000)

The second respondent was appointed and acted as an expert, not as an arbiter, under the terms of the lease and the parties' agreement. As an expert, he was entitled to undertake his own investigations and was not required to disclose all material to the parties. There was no formulated dispute requiring judicial resolution, and the expert's determination was not amenable to judicial review on the grounds advanced.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 219
Parties
Petitioner: AGE LIMITED; First Respondent: Shoprite Ltd (First Respondent); Second Respondent: Graeme Sutherland Brown (Second Respondent)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing and Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Rent Review, Expert Determination Vs Arbitration, Lease Interpretation, Judicial Review of Expert Determination
Property Law Contract Law Judicial Review Rent Review Expert Determination Vs Arbitration Lease Interpretation Judicial Review of Expert Determination

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AGE LIMITED

Petitioner

Shoprite Ltd (First Respondent)

First Respondent

Graeme Sutherland Brown (Second Respondent)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing and Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the independent surveyor acted as an expert or as an arbiter under the lease
  2. 2 Whether the expert's determination is amenable to judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the expert acted ultra vires or ultra fines compromissi

Ratio Decidendi

The second respondent was appointed and acted as an expert, not as an arbiter, under the terms of the lease and the parties' agreement. As an expert, he was entitled to undertake his own investigations and was not required to disclose all material to the parties. There was no formulated dispute requiring judicial resolution, and the expert's determination was not amenable to judicial review on the grounds advanced.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Repel the plea-in-law for the petitioner
  • Sustain the second, third and fourth pleas-in-law for the first respondent