GRANTON CENTRAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD AGAINST CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL [2021] ScotCS CSOH_30 (19 March 2021)

GRANTON CENTRAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD AGAINST CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL [2021] ScotCS CSOH_30 (19 March 2021)

The pursuer has no title to sue under clause 5.4 of the Agreement because it was not a party to the Agreement, did not receive an assignation of rights from Forth, and was not the heritable proprietor at the relevant time. The rights under clause 5.4, even if construed as enforceable by successors, would vest in Alpha as owner at the time of compulsory acquisition, not the pursuer. The pursuer's status as tenant, developer, or 'controlling mind' does not create the necessary legal relation to enforce clause 5.4 against the Council. The broader public law test for standing does not apply in this private law context.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_30
Parties
Pursuer: Granton Central Developments Limited; Defender: City of Edinburgh Council
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (court of Session, Scotland) / Second Opinion Following Second Debate on Title to Sue
Outcome
Action dismissed for want of title to sue.
Legal Topics
Title to Sue, Section 75 Agreements, Successors in Title, Compulsory Purchase, Standing in Private Law Actions
Contract Law Planning Law Property Law Title to Sue Section 75 Agreements Successors in Title Compulsory Purchase Standing in Private Law Actions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Granton Central Developments Limited

Pursuer

City of Edinburgh Council

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (court of Session, Scotland) / Second Opinion Following Second Debate on Title to Sue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer has title to sue under clause 5.4 of the section 75 Agreement
  2. 2 Whether rights under the Agreement passed to the pursuer as a successor in title or by other means
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer's interest as tenant or developer confers standing to enforce clause 5.4

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer has no title to sue under clause 5.4 of the Agreement because it was not a party to the Agreement, did not receive an assignation of rights from Forth, and was not the heritable proprietor at the relevant time. The rights under clause 5.4, even if construed as enforceable by successors, would vest in Alpha as owner at the time of compulsory acquisition, not the pursuer. The pursuer's status as tenant, developer, or 'controlling mind' does not create the necessary legal relation to enforce clause 5.4 against the Council. The broader public law test for standing does not apply in this private law context.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed for want of title to sue.

Orders

  • The Council's first plea in law (no title to sue) is upheld.
  • The pursuer's averments of title to sue are found irrelevant.