Pik Facilities Ltd v. Shell Uk Limited & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_94 (13 July 2005)

Pik Facilities Ltd v. Shell Uk Limited & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSOH_94 (13 July 2005)

Specific implement is not competent after expiry of a lease for obligations to repair and yield up, as the tenant has not contracted to return and perform works after the lease ends; the landlord's remedy is damages. The pursuers' first conclusion for specific implement is therefore dismissed. The pleadings are otherwise sufficient to allow a proof before answer on damages and waiver.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_94
Parties
Pursuer: Pik Facilities Limited; Defender: Shell UK Limited; Third Party: BP Oil UK Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Lease Dispute / Procedure Roll (pleadings Debate)
Outcome
First conclusion for specific implement dismissed; proof before answer allowed on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Specific Implement, Damages for Breach of Lease, Waiver, Lease Obligations, Remedies After Lease Expiry
Contract Law Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Specific Implement Damages for Breach of Lease Waiver Lease Obligations Remedies After Lease Expiry

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

Parties

Pik Facilities Limited

Pursuer

Shell UK Limited

Defender

BP Oil UK Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Lease Dispute / Procedure Roll (pleadings Debate)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is specific implement competent after expiry of a lease for obligations to repair and yield up?
  2. 2 Are the pleadings sufficiently specific as to the works required and the state of disrepair?
  3. 3 Is the claim for business interruption losses relevant?

Ratio Decidendi

Specific implement is not competent after expiry of a lease for obligations to repair and yield up, as the tenant has not contracted to return and perform works after the lease ends; the landlord's remedy is damages. The pursuers' first conclusion for specific implement is therefore dismissed. The pleadings are otherwise sufficient to allow a proof before answer on damages and waiver.

Court Disposition

First conclusion for specific implement dismissed; proof before answer allowed on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Repel first plea-in-law for pursuers.
  • Sustain first pleas-in-law for defenders and third party to extent of dismissing first conclusion.