PERSIMMON HOMES + CHARLES CHURCH DEVELOPMENTS v. BJR REALISATIONS LTD + SEAN DONAGHEY [2013] ScotSC 80 (03 October 2013)

PERSIMMON HOMES + CHARLES CHURCH DEVELOPMENTS v. BJR REALISATIONS LTD + SEAN DONAGHEY [2013] ScotSC 80 (03 October 2013)

It is competent for the pursuers in a summary application under section 24 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 to include a common law crave for ejection against current occupiers; the sheriff was entitled to refuse late amendment due to prejudice and stage of proceedings.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 80
Parties
First Pursuers and Respondents: Persimmon Homes; Second Pursuers and Respondents: Charles Church Developments; First Defenders: BJR Realisations Limited; Second Defender and Appellant: Sean Donaghey
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Summary Application / Appeal Against Interlocutors of 15 February 2013 and 13 March 2013
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.
Legal Topics
Standard Security, Ejection, Competency of Crave, Amendment of Pleadings, Summary Application Vs Summary Cause
Property Law Civil Procedure Standard Security Ejection Competency of Crave Amendment of Pleadings Summary Application Vs Summary Cause

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Persimmon Homes

First Pursuers and Respondents

Charles Church Developments

Second Pursuers and Respondents

BJR Realisations Limited

First Defenders

Sean Donaghey

Second Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Summary Application / Appeal Against Interlocutors of 15 February 2013 and 13 March 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether crave 2 (common law ejection) is competent in a summary application under section 24 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in refusing to hear argument on competency
  3. 3 Whether the sheriff exercised discretion unreasonably in refusing amendment

Ratio Decidendi

It is competent for the pursuers in a summary application under section 24 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 to include a common law crave for ejection against current occupiers; the sheriff was entitled to refuse late amendment due to prejudice and stage of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutors adhered to.

Orders

  • Second defender and appellant liable to pursuers and respondents in expenses of the appeal.
  • Account of expenses to be given in and remitted to auditor of court to tax and report.