Grampian Joint Police Board v Pearson [2001] ScotCS 71 (22 March 2001)

Grampian Joint Police Board v Pearson [2001] ScotCS 71 (22 March 2001)

The pre-emption provision in the feu charter is not a valid and enforceable real condition because it fails to specify with sufficient clarity the price payable or a mechanism for determining it; the term 'cost' is not ambiguous in context, but the absence of a specified amount or ascertainment mechanism means the burden is not fully disclosed on the face of the title, contrary to established legal requirements.

Citation
[2001] ScotCS 71
Parties
Pursuer: Grampian Joint Police Board; Defender: The Honourable Charles A Pearson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Declarator Action / Inner House, Court of Session (appellate Review of Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor)
Outcome
reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed
Legal Topics
Real Conditions, Pre Emption Rights, Clarity of Title Conditions, Enforceability of Burdens, Land Law
Property Law Conveyancing Real Burdens Real Conditions Pre Emption Rights Clarity of Title Conditions Enforceability of Burdens Land Law

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grampian Joint Police Board

Pursuer

The Honourable Charles A Pearson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Reclaiming Motion (appeal) in Declarator Action / Inner House, Court of Session (appellate Review of Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pre-emption provision in the feu charter constitutes a valid and enforceable real condition or burden on the land
  2. 2 Whether the term 'cost' in the pre-emption clause is sufficiently clear and specific to be enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The pre-emption provision in the feu charter is not a valid and enforceable real condition because it fails to specify with sufficient clarity the price payable or a mechanism for determining it; the term 'cost' is not ambiguous in context, but the absence of a specified amount or ascertainment mechanism means the burden is not fully disclosed on the face of the title, contrary to established legal requirements.

Court Disposition

reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary affirmed

Orders

  • Declarator granted that the pre-emption provision is of no force and effect; pursuers entitled to sell the subjects without first offering to the defender