Ralph Lauren London Ltd v London Borough of Southwark [2011] ScotCS CSOH_103 (17 June 2011)

Ralph Lauren London Ltd v London Borough of Southwark [2011] ScotCS CSOH_103 (17 June 2011)

The Back Letter only restricts the first letting of Unit G6 to retailers other than high quality fashion retailers approved by the pursuers; it does not restrict lettings to non-retailers. A hairdressing salon is not a retailer for the purposes of the undertaking, so the defenders do not require the pursuers' approval to let Unit G6 to John Quinn Salons Limited. The pursuers do not have a prima facie case for interim interdict.

Citation
[2011] ScotCS CSOH_103
Parties
Pursuer: Ralph Lauren London Limited; Defender: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark as Trustee of the London Borough of Southwark Pension Fund
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Motion for Interim Interdict / Decision on Motion
Outcome
motion for interim interdict refused
Legal Topics
Lease Interpretation, Restrictive Covenants, Interim Interdict
Contract Law Property Law Lease Interpretation Restrictive Covenants Interim Interdict

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph Lauren London Limited

Pursuer

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark as Trustee of the London Borough of Southwark Pension Fund

Defender

Procedural Posture

Motion for Interim Interdict / Decision on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord is restricted from letting Unit G6 to non-retailers under the Back Letter
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers' approval is required for letting Unit G6 to a hairdressing business
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers have a prima facie case for interim interdict

Ratio Decidendi

The Back Letter only restricts the first letting of Unit G6 to retailers other than high quality fashion retailers approved by the pursuers; it does not restrict lettings to non-retailers. A hairdressing salon is not a retailer for the purposes of the undertaking, so the defenders do not require the pursuers' approval to let Unit G6 to John Quinn Salons Limited. The pursuers do not have a prima facie case for interim interdict.

Court Disposition

motion for interim interdict refused

Orders

  • motion for interim interdict refused
  • leave to reclaim granted to pursuers