Romano v. Standard Commercial Property Securities Ltd & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_105 (18 July 2008)

Romano v. Standard Commercial Property Securities Ltd & Anor [2008] ScotCS CSOH_105 (18 July 2008)

There is no recognised servitude of 'shop front' or signage in Scots law, nor is such a right akin to any known servitude. The pursuer's claim fails as a matter of law. Even if such a servitude could exist, the pursuer's averments do not establish the necessary prescriptive use for twenty years over the relevant part of the property. The action is therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ScotCS CSOH_105
Parties
Pursuer: Luigi Romano; First Defender: Standard Commercial Property Securities Ltd; Second Defender: Atlas Investments Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Opinion (final Judgment)
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Servitudes, Prescription, Heritable Rights, Title Conditions, Declarator
Property Law Real Rights Servitudes Prescription Heritable Rights Title Conditions Declarator

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luigi Romano

Pursuer

Standard Commercial Property Securities Ltd

First Defender

Atlas Investments Ltd

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Opinion (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a servitude right to erect a shop front/fascia exists under Scots law
  2. 2 Whether such a servitude could be constituted by prescription
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer has title and interest to sue

Ratio Decidendi

There is no recognised servitude of 'shop front' or signage in Scots law, nor is such a right akin to any known servitude. The pursuer's claim fails as a matter of law. Even if such a servitude could exist, the pursuer's averments do not establish the necessary prescriptive use for twenty years over the relevant part of the property. The action is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Repel pursuer's fourth plea-in-law and exclude specified averments from probation
  • Repel first defenders' first plea-in-law