Glendinning v. Board of Agriculture for Scotland [1917] ScotLR 234 (30 January 1917)

Glendinning v. Board of Agriculture for Scotland [1917] ScotLR 234 (30 January 1917)

The action was incompetent because the arbiter had issued a final award determining both fact and law, and it was not permissible for parties to challenge that award by ordinary action. Even if competent, the pursuer's claim was irrelevant as his tenancy terminated at Martinmas 1914 and any arrangement for extension was conditional and did not confer a right to compensation for 1915.

Citation
[1917] ScotLR 234
Parties
Pursuer: James Peter Glendinning; Defender: Board of Agriculture for Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 January 1917
Procedural Posture
Action of Declarator / Inner House Appeal, Post Arbitration
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Lease, Compensation for Expropriation, Small Holdings, Competency of Action, Notice to Remove
Landlord and Tenant Agricultural Law Arbitration Termination of Lease Compensation for Expropriation Small Holdings Competency of Action Notice to Remove

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Peter Glendinning

Pursuer

Board of Agriculture for Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Declarator / Inner House Appeal, Post Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action for declarator was competent after arbitration award
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer had a valid tenancy extending to Martinmas 1915
  3. 3 Whether compensation for loss of profits for 1915 was due under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911

Ratio Decidendi

The action was incompetent because the arbiter had issued a final award determining both fact and law, and it was not permissible for parties to challenge that award by ordinary action. Even if competent, the pursuer's claim was irrelevant as his tenancy terminated at Martinmas 1914 and any arrangement for extension was conditional and did not confer a right to compensation for 1915.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled
  • First plea-in-law for defenders sustained