APPEAL BY JOHN CAPE t/a BRIGGATE INVESTMENTS IN THE CAUSE INGRID ALEXANDRA GRAY and CATHERINE ALEXANDRA SWEATON OR DEENEY v JOHN CAPE t/a BRIGGATE INVESTMENTS [2021] ScotSAC Civ 32 (18 October 2021)

The court held that the sheriff did not err in law and that the statutory and contractual requirements for recovery of possession were satisfied, justifying the decree in favour of the pursuers.

Citation: [2021] ScotSAC Civ 32
Parties: Pursuer: Ingrid Alexandra Gray; Pursuer: Catherine Alexandra Sweaton or Deeney; Defender/appellant: John Cape t/a Briggate Investments
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 18 October 2021
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal
Outcome: appeal refused
Legal Topics: Recovery of Possession, Tenancy Agreements, Appeal Procedure

Property Law Landlord and Tenant Recovery of Possession Tenancy Agreements Appeal Procedure

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Ingrid Alexandra Gray

Pursuer

Catherine Alexandra Sweaton or Deeney

Pursuer

John Cape t/a Briggate Investments

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the sheriff erred in granting decree for recovery of possession against the defender
2 Interpretation of tenancy agreement terms
3 Application of statutory requirements for recovery of possession

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the sheriff did not err in law and that the statutory and contractual requirements for recovery of possession were satisfied, justifying the decree in favour of the pursuers.

Court Disposition

appeal refused

Orders

decree for recovery of possession affirmed
appellant liable in expenses