Grampian Joint Police Board v Pearson [2000] ScotCS 97 (4 April 2000)

Grampian Joint Police Board v Pearson [2000] ScotCS 97 (4 April 2000)

The pre-emption clause fails to meet the required standard of clarity for a real burden because the price capping provision ('original cost of said buildings') is inadequately specified, lacking a mechanism for ascertainment and failing to define what costs are included. Therefore, the clause is unenforceable and of no force or effect.

Citation
[2000] ScotCS 97
Parties
Pursuer: The Grampian Joint Police Board; Defender: The Honourable Charles A. Pearson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
04 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedure Roll (debate on Legal Issues)
Outcome
Decree de plano granted in favour of the pursuers; first three pleas-in-law for pursuers sustained; action not dismissed.
Legal Topics
Real Burdens, Pre Emption Rights, Strict Construction of Burdens, Clarity of Contractual Terms
Property Law Conveyancing Real Burdens Pre Emption Rights Strict Construction of Burdens Clarity of Contractual Terms

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Grampian Joint Police Board

Pursuer

The Honourable Charles A. Pearson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedure Roll (debate on Legal Issues)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right of pre-emption clause in the Feu Charter is sufficiently clear and enforceable as a real burden
  2. 2 Whether the price capping provision ('original cost of said buildings') is adequately specified to be enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The pre-emption clause fails to meet the required standard of clarity for a real burden because the price capping provision ('original cost of said buildings') is inadequately specified, lacking a mechanism for ascertainment and failing to define what costs are included. Therefore, the clause is unenforceable and of no force or effect.

Court Disposition

Decree de plano granted in favour of the pursuers; first three pleas-in-law for pursuers sustained; action not dismissed.

Orders

  • Declarator that the pre-emption clause is of no force and effect and the pursuers are entitled to sell the property without first offering it to the defender.
  • Consequential orders in terms of the first three conclusions of the summons.