Superdrug Stores Plc v. Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSIH_4 (27 January 2006)

Superdrug Stores Plc v. Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd [2006] ScotCS CSIH_4 (27 January 2006)

The making of an application under section 1(1) of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949 occurs when a procedurally valid summons and the appropriate fee are presented to the sheriff clerk, with an implied request for processing. Authentication of the summons is not required for the application to be made. Accordingly, the application in this case was made timeously on 16 December 2004.

Citation
[2006] ScotCS CSIH_4
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Superdrug Stores Plc; Defender and Respondent: Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
27 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (summary Cause) / Inner House, Court of Session (from Sheriff Principal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Tenancy Renewal, Time Bar, Summary Cause Procedure, Application to Sheriff, 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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Superdrug Stores Plc

Pursuer and Appellant

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd

Defender and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (summary Cause) / Inner House, Court of Session (from Sheriff Principal)

  1. 1 Whether presentation of a summary cause summons and fee to the sheriff clerk constitutes a timeous 'application' under section 1(1) of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949.
  2. 2 Whether authentication of the summons is required for an application to be made for statutory time bar purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The making of an application under section 1(1) of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949 occurs when a procedurally valid summons and the appropriate fee are presented to the sheriff clerk, with an implied request for processing. Authentication of the summons is not required for the application to be made. Accordingly, the application in this case was made timeously on 16 December 2004.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal refused.

Orders

  • Remit to the sheriff to proceed as accords.