Pollock & Ors v Drogo Developments Ltd [2017] ScotCS CSOH_64 (13 April 2017)

Pollock & Ors v Drogo Developments Ltd [2017] ScotCS CSOH_64 (13 April 2017)

The disposition expressly limited the right to install new services to the Service Strip, and the right to renew or alter existing services did not include the right to reroute or relocate them. The defender had no contractual or common law right to lay new pipes outside the Service Strip or to alter the established route of existing services. The pursuers’ objections negated any suggestion of acquiescence or personal bar.

Citation
[2017] ScotCS CSOH_64
Parties
Pursuer: William Paterson Pollock and Others; Defender: Drogo Developments Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll Discussion (interlocutory)
Outcome
Declarator granted in favour of pursuers; remedy to be determined after further hearing.
Legal Topics
Servitudes, Real Burdens, Encroachment, Interpretation of Deeds, Personal Bar (estoppel)
Property Law Real Estate Servitudes Real Burdens Encroachment Interpretation of Deeds Personal Bar (estoppel)

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Paterson Pollock and Others

Pursuer

Drogo Developments Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll Discussion (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender had a right to lay new drainage pipes through the pursuers’ property outside the defined Service Strip
  2. 2 Whether the defender’s actions constituted a wrongful encroachment
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers were personally barred from seeking removal of the pipes

Ratio Decidendi

The disposition expressly limited the right to install new services to the Service Strip, and the right to renew or alter existing services did not include the right to reroute or relocate them. The defender had no contractual or common law right to lay new pipes outside the Service Strip or to alter the established route of existing services. The pursuers’ objections negated any suggestion of acquiescence or personal bar.

Court Disposition

Declarator granted in favour of pursuers; remedy to be determined after further hearing.

Orders

  • Case to be put out By Order to clarify the orders to be made and to address the issue of remedy and expenses.