Menzies v. Marquis of Breadalbane [1901] ScotLR 39_33 (01 November 1901)

Menzies v. Marquis of Breadalbane [1901] ScotLR 39_33 (01 November 1901)

The pursuer was not entitled to a right of access through the defender's lands because he could obtain access to his property by crossing the river, and there was no legal necessity. Further, absent a special relationship, the law does not impose an obligation on a neighbour to provide access. The pursuer also failed to prove acquisition of a servitude by prescription or that the access was part and pertinent of his lands.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 39_33
Parties
Pursuer: Sir Robert Menzies of that Ilk, Baronet; Defender: Marquis of Breadalbane
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
01 November 1901
Procedural Posture
Action of Declarator / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) in the Inner House, After Proof Before the Lord Ordinary
Outcome
Defender assoilzied (absolved); pursuer's claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right of Access, Access of Necessity, Servitude by Prescription
Property Law Right of Access Access of Necessity Servitude by Prescription

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

Parties

Sir Robert Menzies of that Ilk, Baronet

Pursuer

Marquis of Breadalbane

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Declarator / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) in the Inner House, After Proof Before the Lord Ordinary

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer is entitled to a right of access through the defender's lands as a way of necessity
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer has acquired a servitude of access by prescription
  3. 3 Whether the claimed access is part and pertinent of the pursuer's lands

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer was not entitled to a right of access through the defender's lands because he could obtain access to his property by crossing the river, and there was no legal necessity. Further, absent a special relationship, the law does not impose an obligation on a neighbour to provide access. The pursuer also failed to prove acquisition of a servitude by prescription or that the access was part and pertinent of his lands.

Court Disposition

Defender assoilzied (absolved); pursuer's claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Interlocutor reclaimed against recalled.
  • Defender assoilzied from all conclusions of the summons.