Anderson v. Cluny Investment Services [2004] ScotSC 20 (11 March 2004)

Anderson v. Cluny Investment Services [2004] ScotSC 20 (11 March 2004)

The pursuer gave up her occupation of the cottage as a residence in August 1998 as a result of the defenders' unlawful imposition of conditions for re-occupation, satisfying the requirements of section 36(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. The sheriff erred in law by conflating giving up occupation with giving up the tenancy. The pursuer was entitled to damages under section 36(3), and the defenders' subsequent offer of keys did not amount to reinstatement under section 36(6).

Citation
[2004] ScotSC 20
Parties
Pursuer and Appellant: Norma Anderson; Defenders and Respondents: Cluny Investment Services Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Sheriff Principal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutor of sheriff varied; decree for payment granted in favour of pursuer.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Deprivation of Occupation, Damages for Loss of Right to Occupy, Interpretation of Housing (scotland) Act 1988 S36, Causation in Damages Claims, Tenancy Rights, Protected Tenancy, Unlawful Conditions Imposed by Landlord
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Deprivation of Occupation Damages for Loss of Right to Occupy Interpretation of Housing (scotland) Act 1988 S36 Causation in Damages Claims Tenancy Rights +2 more

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

Parties

Norma Anderson

Pursuer and Appellant

Cluny Investment Services Limited

Defenders and Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Sheriff Principal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer gave up occupation of the property as a residence due to the defenders' unlawful imposition of conditions
  2. 2 Whether the defenders' actions constituted unlawful interference under section 36(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was entitled to damages under section 36(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer gave up her occupation of the cottage as a residence in August 1998 as a result of the defenders' unlawful imposition of conditions for re-occupation, satisfying the requirements of section 36(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. The sheriff erred in law by conflating giving up occupation with giving up the tenancy. The pursuer was entitled to damages under section 36(3), and the defenders' subsequent offer of keys did not amount to reinstatement under section 36(6).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutor of sheriff varied; decree for payment granted in favour of pursuer.

Orders

  • Decree for payment by defenders to pursuer of £7,500 with interest at 8% per annum from 31 August 1998 until payment
  • Defenders found liable to pursuer in whole expenses of the cause, including the appeal