Grant v. morison's trustees [1913] ScotLR 696 (24 May 1913)

Grant v. morison's trustees [1913] ScotLR 696 (24 May 1913)

The statutory right conferred by the Act is not excluded for tenants who had received notice to quit prior to the Act; the Act does not expressly exclude such tenants, and the applicant was in lawful possession at the relevant date.

Citation
[1913] ScotLR 696
Parties
Applicant: George Grant; Respondents: Major C. J. Perceval and another, trustees of the late Lieut.-Col. F. de L. Morison
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 May 1913
Procedural Posture
Special Case Stated by the Scottish Land Court for the Opinion of the First Division of the Court of Session / Appeal on Competency of Application for Renewal of Tenancy
Outcome
Application held competent; objection to competency repelled.
Legal Topics
Small Holding, Renewal of Tenancy, Competency of Application, Small Landholders (scotland) Act 1911
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Small Holding Renewal of Tenancy Competency of Application Small Landholders (scotland) Act 1911

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Grant

Applicant

Major C. J. Perceval and another, trustees of the late Lieut.-Col. F. de L. Morison

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Special Case Stated by the Scottish Land Court for the Opinion of the First Division of the Court of Session / Appeal on Competency of Application for Renewal of Tenancy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tenant who received notice to quit prior to the passing of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 is entitled to apply for renewal of tenancy under the Act
  2. 2 Whether the application to the Land Court was competent given the prior notice to remove

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory right conferred by the Act is not excluded for tenants who had received notice to quit prior to the Act; the Act does not expressly exclude such tenants, and the applicant was in lawful possession at the relevant date.

Court Disposition

Application held competent; objection to competency repelled.

Orders

  • Second question answered in the affirmative: the application was competently made to the Land Court.
  • First question refused as stated.