Rubislaw Land Company Ltd v Aberdeen Construction Group Ltd & Ors [1999] ScotCS 91 (30 March 1999)
The Deed of Conditions is valid and incorporated into the pursuers' title, but does not expressly restrict the servitude of access to a single point or specific location. The pursuers' right of access is not, on the face of the deeds, limited to a particular point, and the defenders' arguments for such a restriction are not supported by the language of the relevant documents. The action is competent and there is a real issue to be resolved at proof regarding the extent and exercise of the access right.
- Citation
- [1999] ScotCS 91
- Parties
- Pursuer: Rubislaw Land Company Limited; Defender: Aberdeen Construction Group Limited and Others
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 30 March 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Interlocutory (opinion on Legal Arguments, Proof Before Answer Allowed)
- Outcome
- First plea in law for the defenders repelled; proof before answer allowed.
- Legal Topics
- Servitude of Access, Interpretation of Deeds of Conditions, Real Burdens, Access Rights, Land Development, Title Conditions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rubislaw Land Company Limited
Pursuer
Aberdeen Construction Group Limited and Others
Defender
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (opinion on Legal Arguments, Proof Before Answer Allowed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the pursuers have an unqualified servitude right of access over Hill of Rubislaw Road
- 2 Whether the Deed of Conditions validly restricts or qualifies the servitude right
- 3 Whether the Deed of Conditions is a nullity or effective
Ratio Decidendi
The Deed of Conditions is valid and incorporated into the pursuers' title, but does not expressly restrict the servitude of access to a single point or specific location. The pursuers' right of access is not, on the face of the deeds, limited to a particular point, and the defenders' arguments for such a restriction are not supported by the language of the relevant documents. The action is competent and there is a real issue to be resolved at proof regarding the extent and exercise of the access right.
Court Disposition
First plea in law for the defenders repelled; proof before answer allowed.
Orders
- Repel first plea in law for defenders
- Allow proof before answer
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment