Alexander v Royal Hotel (Caithness) Ltd Per Taylor [2000] ScotCS 255 (6 October 2000)

Alexander v Royal Hotel (Caithness) Ltd Per Taylor [2000] ScotCS 255 (6 October 2000)

A tenant's right of retention of rent, arising from the landlord's material breach of obligations under the lease, is a valid defence to a statutory notice to quit under section 22(2)(d) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. Rent is not 'due' for the purposes of a statutory demand if the tenant is entitled to retain it. The arbiter has jurisdiction to determine whether the tenant's right of retention exists. The sheriff erred in holding otherwise and in relying on Wilson-Clarke v Graham, which is overruled.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 255
Parties
Tenant and Appellant: William Mowat Alexander; Landlord and Respondent: The Royal Hotel (Caithness) Limited per R. Taylor
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
06 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration Under the Agricultural Holdings (scotland) Act 1991 / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision on Stated Case From Arbiter
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sheriff's decision reversed; case remitted for proof before arbiter.
Legal Topics
Right of Retention, Mutuality of Obligations, Statutory Notices to Quit, Arbitration Under Agricultural Holdings (scotland) Act 1991, Interpretation of 'rent Due', Remedies for Breach of Lease
Landlord and Tenant Agricultural Law Contract Law Right of Retention Mutuality of Obligations Statutory Notices to Quit Arbitration Under Agricultural Holdings (scotland) Act 1991 Interpretation of 'rent Due' +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Mowat Alexander

Tenant and Appellant

The Royal Hotel (Caithness) Limited per R. Taylor

Landlord and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Under the Agricultural Holdings (scotland) Act 1991 / Appeal From Sheriff's Decision on Stated Case From Arbiter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tenant's right of retention of rent is a defence to a statutory notice to quit under section 22(2)(d) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 when the landlord is in material breach of obligations
  2. 2 Whether rent is 'due' for the purposes of section 22(2)(d) if the tenant is entitled to retain it due to landlord's breach
  3. 3 Whether the arbiter has jurisdiction to determine the tenant's right of retention under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

A tenant's right of retention of rent, arising from the landlord's material breach of obligations under the lease, is a valid defence to a statutory notice to quit under section 22(2)(d) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991. Rent is not 'due' for the purposes of a statutory demand if the tenant is entitled to retain it. The arbiter has jurisdiction to determine whether the tenant's right of retention exists. The sheriff erred in holding otherwise and in relying on Wilson-Clarke v Graham, which is overruled.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sheriff's decision reversed; case remitted for proof before arbiter.

Orders

  • Questions 1 and 2 in the stated case declined to be answered.
  • Question 3 answered in the affirmative: the tenant's averments are relevant to justify retention.