GILCOMSTON INVESTMENTS LIMITED v. SPEEDY HIRE (SCOTLAND) LIMITED [2012] ScotSC 120 (14 September 2012)

GILCOMSTON INVESTMENTS LIMITED v. SPEEDY HIRE (SCOTLAND) LIMITED [2012] ScotSC 120 (14 September 2012)

The lease between the parties ended on 13 September 2011 as the missives of let ceased to be enforceable after two years and no proceedings were raised within that period. Thereafter, the lease continued only by tacit relocation until the defender served notice to quit and vacated the premises. The document signed by the pursuer in 2011 was not a valid lease as it was not signed by both parties and was delivered after the lease had ended.

Citation
[2012] ScotSC 120
Parties
Pursuer: Gilcomston Investments Limited; Defender: Speedy Hire (Scotland) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Debate
Outcome
action dismissed
Legal Topics
Commercial Leases, Tacit Relocation, Missives of Let, Termination of Lease
Property Law Contract Law Commercial Leases Tacit Relocation Missives of Let Termination of Lease

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

Parties

Gilcomston Investments Limited

Pursuer

Speedy Hire (Scotland) Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Debate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties were bound by a valid and enforceable lease for the premises at 35-39 Ann Street, Aberdeen after 13 September 2011
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer is entitled to payment of rent for the period from 14 September 2011 to 27 February 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The lease between the parties ended on 13 September 2011 as the missives of let ceased to be enforceable after two years and no proceedings were raised within that period. Thereafter, the lease continued only by tacit relocation until the defender served notice to quit and vacated the premises. The document signed by the pursuer in 2011 was not a valid lease as it was not signed by both parties and was delivered after the lease had ended.

Court Disposition

action dismissed

Orders

  • first plea-in-law for the defender sustained
  • fourth plea-in-law for the pursuer repelled