Tummel Valley Leisure Ltd v. Sudjic [2010] ScotSC 16 (15 April 2010)

Tummel Valley Leisure Ltd v. Sudjic [2010] ScotSC 16 (15 April 2010)

The erection of the decking materially interfered with the appellants' right to fish by fly in the Moulinearn Pool, particularly in the most productive area, and thus constituted a material limitation on their right to fish by all lawful means. The sheriff erred in law by holding that the right to fish was satisfied by the ability to fish by spinning alone. The appellants are entitled to have the obstruction removed.

Citation
[2010] ScotSC 16
Parties
Pursuers and Appellants: Tummel Valley Leisure Limited; Defender and Respondent: Branislav Sudjic
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Stated Case (summary Cause) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutors recalled (except as to expert witness certification); decree granted against defender as claimed.
Legal Topics
Riparian Rights, Right to Fish, Obstruction of Fishing Rights, Accessory Rights to Land, Remedies for Interference With Servitude
Property Law Scots Law Riparian Rights Right to Fish Obstruction of Fishing Rights Accessory Rights to Land Remedies for Interference With Servitude

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

Parties

Tummel Valley Leisure Limited

Pursuers and Appellants

Branislav Sudjic

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Stated Case (summary Cause) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the erection of decking by the respondent materially interfered with the appellants' right to fish by all lawful means, including fly fishing
  2. 2 Whether the appellants are entitled to require removal of the decking as a remedy for such interference

Ratio Decidendi

The erection of the decking materially interfered with the appellants' right to fish by fly in the Moulinearn Pool, particularly in the most productive area, and thus constituted a material limitation on their right to fish by all lawful means. The sheriff erred in law by holding that the right to fish was satisfied by the ability to fish by spinning alone. The appellants are entitled to have the obstruction removed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sheriff's interlocutors recalled (except as to expert witness certification); decree granted against defender as claimed.

Orders

  • Defender to dismantle and remove the decking structure at the rear of his property within three months.
  • John Young certified as expert witness.