SAUCHIEHALL STREET PROPERTIES ONE Ltd v E.M.I. GROUP Ltd [2014] ScotSC 107 (15 December 2014)

SAUCHIEHALL STREET PROPERTIES ONE Ltd v E.M.I. GROUP Ltd [2014] ScotSC 107 (15 December 2014)

The proceedings were not between landlord and tenant, but between landlord and guarantor; the contract sued upon was a guarantee, not a tenancy; and the object of the proceedings was only indirectly related to the tenancy. Therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction provisions did not apply, and the court had no jurisdiction.

Citation
[2014] ScotSC 107
Parties
Pursuer: Sauchiehall Street Properties One Limited; Defender: EMI Group Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
15 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Ordinary Cause (commercial Roll) / Judgment on Preliminary Plea (jurisdiction)
Outcome
action dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Guarantee, Tenancy of Immovable Property, Brussels I Regulation
Civil Procedure Private International Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction Exclusive Jurisdiction Guarantee Tenancy of Immovable Property Brussels I Regulation

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

Parties

Sauchiehall Street Properties One Limited

Pursuer

EMI Group Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Ordinary Cause (commercial Roll) / Judgment on Preliminary Plea (jurisdiction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings by a landlord against a guarantor of a tenant's obligations under a lease have as their object a tenancy of immovable property for the purposes of exclusive jurisdiction under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and Brussels I Regulation.

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were not between landlord and tenant, but between landlord and guarantor; the contract sued upon was a guarantee, not a tenancy; and the object of the proceedings was only indirectly related to the tenancy. Therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction provisions did not apply, and the court had no jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

action dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • Sustains the defender’s first plea-in-law
  • Dismisses the action