Superdrug Stores Plc v. Network Rail Infrastructures Ltd [2005] ScotSC 43 (26 July 2005)

Superdrug Stores Plc v. Network Rail Infrastructures Ltd [2005] ScotSC 43 (26 July 2005)

No valid application was made on 16 December 2004 because the appellants' agents failed to give any direction to the sheriff clerk to process the summons, and the document was taken away. The only application was made on 17 December 2004, which was out of time under the statutory requirements. The appeal was therefore refused.

Citation
[2005] ScotSC 43
Parties
Pursuer/appellant: Superdrug Stores PLC; Defender/respondent: Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (summary Cause) / Judgment on Appeal From Preliminary Proof
Outcome
Appeal refused; interlocutors adhered to.
Legal Topics
Tenancy Renewal, Time Bar, Summary Cause Procedure, Application to Court, Court Fees, Authentication of Summons
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Tenancy Renewal Time Bar Summary Cause Procedure Application to Court Court Fees Authentication of Summons

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

Parties

Superdrug Stores PLC

Pursuer/appellant

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited

Defender/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (summary Cause) / Judgment on Appeal From Preliminary Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for renewal of tenancy was made timeously under section 1(1) of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949
  2. 2 Whether presentation of the summons or authentication by the sheriff clerk constitutes making an application to the sheriff
  3. 3 Whether actions on 16 December 2004 amounted to a valid application

Ratio Decidendi

No valid application was made on 16 December 2004 because the appellants' agents failed to give any direction to the sheriff clerk to process the summons, and the document was taken away. The only application was made on 17 December 2004, which was out of time under the statutory requirements. The appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; interlocutors adhered to.

Orders

  • Answers questions of law 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 in the affirmative.
  • Answers questions of law 1 and 14 in the negative.