Wright v. Shoreline Management Ltd [2009] ScotSC 14 (29 June 2009)

Wright v. Shoreline Management Ltd [2009] ScotSC 14 (29 June 2009)

The sheriff court retains jurisdiction to declare the existence of a tenancy-at-will outside the context of section 20 of the 1979 Act, but the pursuer's pleadings are irrelevant for lack of adequate specification of custom and usage and failure to establish a fixed ground rent as required for a tenancy-at-will.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 14
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: William Wright; Defenders and Respondents: Shoreline Management Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; sheriff's interlocutor recalled insofar as it upheld the defenders' sixth plea-in-law; plea repelled; appeal otherwise refused and interlocutor adhered to.
Legal Topics
Tenancy at Will, Jurisdiction of Lands Tribunal, Custom and Usage in Land Tenure, Declaratory Orders, Relevancy of Pleadings
Property Law Land Tenure Civil Procedure Tenancy at Will Jurisdiction of Lands Tribunal Custom and Usage in Land Tenure Declaratory Orders Relevancy of Pleadings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Wright

Pursuer and Appellant

Shoreline Management Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff court has jurisdiction to declare the existence of a tenancy-at-will or if this is exclusively for the Lands Tribunal under the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's pleadings are sufficiently relevant and specific to support the existence of a tenancy-at-will, particularly regarding custom and usage and the nature of ground rent

Ratio Decidendi

The sheriff court retains jurisdiction to declare the existence of a tenancy-at-will outside the context of section 20 of the 1979 Act, but the pursuer's pleadings are irrelevant for lack of adequate specification of custom and usage and failure to establish a fixed ground rent as required for a tenancy-at-will.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sheriff's interlocutor recalled insofar as it upheld the defenders' sixth plea-in-law; plea repelled; appeal otherwise refused and interlocutor adhered to.

Orders

  • Certifies the appeal as suitable for the employment of junior counsel.
  • Finds defenders and respondents liable to pursuer and appellant in expenses occasioned by motions nos. 7/3 and 7/4 of process.