URY ESTATE LIMITED AGAINST BP EXPLORATION OPERATING COMPANY LIMITED [2019] ScotCS CSOH_36 (18 April 2019)

URY ESTATE LIMITED AGAINST BP EXPLORATION OPERATING COMPANY LIMITED [2019] ScotCS CSOH_36 (18 April 2019)

The court found that the pursuer satisfied the requirements of condition 25 of the servitude: it wished to develop the land, the proposed development was prevented solely by the existence of the pipeline (as evidenced by the planning refusal), and the defender refused to divert the pipeline. The proper measure of loss is the difference in value between the 35-bedroom hotel that could have been developed but for the pipeline and the 5-bedroom hotel for which planning permission exists, less the additional build costs. The pursuer's evidence on valuation and costs was preferred over the defender's. The pursuer is entitled to compensation as claimed.

Citation
[2019] ScotCS CSOH_36
Parties
Pursuer: Ury Estate Limited; Defender: BP Exploration Operating Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Commercial Proof Before Answer / Judgment After Proof Before Answer
Outcome
Judgment for the pursuer
Legal Topics
Servitude Rights, Compensation for Prevention of Development, Planning Permission Refusal, Valuation of Development Loss
Property Law Contract Law Planning Law Servitude Rights Compensation for Prevention of Development Planning Permission Refusal Valuation of Development Loss

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

Parties

Ury Estate Limited

Pursuer

BP Exploration Operating Company Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Proof Before Answer / Judgment After Proof Before Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the defender liable to pay compensation to the pursuer under the terms of the servitude for prevention of development?
  2. 2 What is the proper quantification of loss suffered by the pursuer due to the prevention of development?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the pursuer satisfied the requirements of condition 25 of the servitude: it wished to develop the land, the proposed development was prevented solely by the existence of the pipeline (as evidenced by the planning refusal), and the defender refused to divert the pipeline. The proper measure of loss is the difference in value between the 35-bedroom hotel that could have been developed but for the pipeline and the 5-bedroom hotel for which planning permission exists, less the additional build costs. The pursuer's evidence on valuation and costs was preferred over the defender's. The pursuer is entitled to compensation as claimed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the pursuer

Orders

  • Defender to pay the pursuer compensation in the sum of £10,883,190.