MRS. WING WAI MA OR CHOI v. HENRY TSE & CO LIMITED AND OTHERS [2009] ScotSC 69 (10 February 2009)

MRS. WING WAI MA OR CHOI v. HENRY TSE & CO LIMITED AND OTHERS [2009] ScotSC 69 (10 February 2009)

The notice served by the pursuer failed to convey the correct information required by the lease and statute, specifically the deadline for payment, and did not avoid the risk that a reasonable recipient could be misled. The period for remedying breach runs from the date of deemed service of notice, not the date of breach.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 69
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Wing Wai Ma or Choi; First Defender: Henry Tse & Co Limited; Second Defender: Others
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Judgment Following Debate on Preliminary Pleas
Outcome
first and second craves for pursuer dismissed; articles 4 and 5 of condescendence refused probation; first plea-in-law for defenders sustained to this extent; proof before answer allowed on remaining averments; expenses reserved
Legal Topics
Irritancy of Lease, Notice Requirements, Statutory Compliance
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Irritancy of Lease Notice Requirements Statutory Compliance

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Wing Wai Ma or Choi

Pursuer

Henry Tse & Co Limited

First Defender

Others

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Judgment Following Debate on Preliminary Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice served for irritancy complied with contractual and statutory requirements
  2. 2 Whether the period for remedying breach runs from the date of breach or date of deemed service of notice

Ratio Decidendi

The notice served by the pursuer failed to convey the correct information required by the lease and statute, specifically the deadline for payment, and did not avoid the risk that a reasonable recipient could be misled. The period for remedying breach runs from the date of deemed service of notice, not the date of breach.

Court Disposition

first and second craves for pursuer dismissed; articles 4 and 5 of condescendence refused probation; first plea-in-law for defenders sustained to this extent; proof before answer allowed on remaining averments; expenses reserved

Orders

  • dismissal of first and second craves
  • refusal to admit articles 4 and 5 of condescendence to probation