William Rennie & Co Ltd v BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_10 (16 February 2011)

William Rennie & Co Ltd v BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd [2011] ScotCS CSIH_10 (16 February 2011)

Clause 25 of the Schedule to the Grant of Servitude is to be interpreted commercially, with the 'proposed development' not rigidly defined by the original application but subject to refinement. Compensation is payable where development is prevented solely by the pipeline, unless the respondent proves planning permission would have been refused for reasons unrelated to the pipeline. The planning authority's refusal was solely due to the pipeline, and but for the pipeline, permission would likely have been granted after amendments. The respondents' defence under Clause 25(f) fails as they did not prove refusal would have occurred for other reasons.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSIH_10
Parties
Claimant: William Rennie & Co Ltd; Respondent: BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
16 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Stated Case Under Section 3 of the Administration of Justice (scotland) Act 1972 / Appeal From Arbitration; Opinion of the Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; questions 1-4 answered in the affirmative, question 5 not arising or answered affirmatively.
Legal Topics
Servitude, Compensation for Prevention of Development, Interpretation of Commercial Contracts, Planning Permission, Contra Proferentem Rule
Property Law Contract Law Planning Law Servitude Compensation for Prevention of Development Interpretation of Commercial Contracts Planning Permission Contra Proferentem Rule

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

Parties

William Rennie & Co Ltd

Claimant

BP Exploration Operating Co Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stated Case Under Section 3 of the Administration of Justice (scotland) Act 1972 / Appeal From Arbitration; Opinion of the Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of Clause 25 of Schedule to Grant of Servitude
  2. 2 Whether compensation is payable for prevention of development by pipeline
  3. 3 Application of Clause 25(f) as defence to compensation claim

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 25 of the Schedule to the Grant of Servitude is to be interpreted commercially, with the 'proposed development' not rigidly defined by the original application but subject to refinement. Compensation is payable where development is prevented solely by the pipeline, unless the respondent proves planning permission would have been refused for reasons unrelated to the pipeline. The planning authority's refusal was solely due to the pipeline, and but for the pipeline, permission would likely have been granted after amendments. The respondents' defence under Clause 25(f) fails as they did not prove refusal would have occurred for other reasons.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; questions 1-4 answered in the affirmative, question 5 not arising or answered affirmatively.

Orders

  • Respondents liable to pay compensation to claimants under Clause 25 of Schedule to Grant of Servitude.
  • Matter remitted to arbiter for determination of quantum.