Latham & Anor v. Hunt [2007] ScotSC 37 (17 July 2007)

Latham & Anor v. Hunt [2007] ScotSC 37 (17 July 2007)

The defender unlawfully interfered with the pursuers' servitude right of access by placing rocks and speed humps on the access road, which constituted more than immaterial interference and was not justified as necessary for the enjoyment of the servient property. The sheriff correctly applied the burden of proof and made findings of fact that were not plainly wrong. There was no evidence of judicial bias or lack of impartiality.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 37
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Stuart James Brennand Latham; Pursuer and Respondent: Mrs Shirley May Latham; Defender and Appellant: Stuart Mark Hunt
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Sheriff Principal
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutors of the sheriff adhered to with minor amendments.
Legal Topics
Servitude Rights of Access, Interdict (injunction), Evidential Burden, Obstruction of Access, Judicial Impartiality
Property Law Civil Procedure Servitude Rights of Access Interdict (injunction) Evidential Burden Obstruction of Access Judicial Impartiality

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stuart James Brennand Latham

Pursuer and Respondent

Mrs Shirley May Latham

Pursuer and Respondent

Stuart Mark Hunt

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff to Sheriff Principal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender unlawfully interfered with the pursuers' servitude right of access by placing rocks and speed humps on the access road
  2. 2 Whether the burden of proof was correctly applied regarding justification for interference with servitude
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff erred in findings of fact and law regarding material interference and necessity of traffic calming measures

Ratio Decidendi

The defender unlawfully interfered with the pursuers' servitude right of access by placing rocks and speed humps on the access road, which constituted more than immaterial interference and was not justified as necessary for the enjoyment of the servient property. The sheriff correctly applied the burden of proof and made findings of fact that were not plainly wrong. There was no evidence of judicial bias or lack of impartiality.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutors of the sheriff adhered to with minor amendments.

Orders

  • Defender and appellant found liable to the pursuers and respondents in the expenses of the appeal.
  • Cause remitted to the sheriff to proceed as accords.