Pik Facilities Ltd v. Watson Ayr Park Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSOH_132 (04 October 2005)

Pik Facilities Ltd v. Watson Ayr Park Ltd [2005] ScotCS CSOH_132 (04 October 2005)

The defenders' pleadings fail to aver sufficient facts to establish the terminal/concourse as a public place for the purposes of a public right of way, and do not provide relevant averments of dominance, abuse, or indispensability under competition law. The pursuers, as heritable proprietors, have title and interest to exclude the defenders, and the defences are irrelevant.

Citation
[2005] ScotCS CSOH_132
Parties
Pursuer: Pik Facilities Limited; Defender: Watson's Ayr Park Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (interdict/trespass) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy of Defences
Outcome
Defences repelled; decree de plano for pursuers
Legal Topics
Trespass, Public Right of Way, Abuse of Dominant Position, Essential Facilities Doctrine, Title to Sue
Property Law Competition Law Civil Procedure Trespass Public Right of Way Abuse of Dominant Position Essential Facilities Doctrine Title to Sue

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

Parties

Pik Facilities Limited

Pursuer

Watson's Ayr Park Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil (interdict/trespass) / Procedure Roll Hearing on Relevancy of Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders have a right to use airport roads for commercial shuttle operations without consent of the proprietor
  2. 2 Whether a public right of way exists over the airport roads to the terminal/concourse
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of the defenders constitutes an abuse of dominant position under Competition Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders' pleadings fail to aver sufficient facts to establish the terminal/concourse as a public place for the purposes of a public right of way, and do not provide relevant averments of dominance, abuse, or indispensability under competition law. The pursuers, as heritable proprietors, have title and interest to exclude the defenders, and the defences are irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Defences repelled; decree de plano for pursuers

Orders

  • Interdict granted against defenders from trespassing on airport roads for commercial shuttle operations without consent