APCOA PARKING (UK) LTD AGAINST CROSSLANDS PROPERTIES LTD [2021] ScotCS CSOH_77 (30 July 2021)

APCOA PARKING (UK) LTD AGAINST CROSSLANDS PROPERTIES LTD [2021] ScotCS CSOH_77 (30 July 2021)

The court held that the pursuer had not established that the defender was in material breach of contract entitling rescission. The defects alleged were either remedied, minor, or within the pursuer's own repairing obligations. The remedial works undertaken by the defender, including the application of Decseal waterproofing and other repairs, rendered the car park functional and fit for purpose. The pursuer was not personally barred from asserting breach, but the threshold for rescission was not met. The defender's withdrawal of the 2018 and 2020 Repair Notices further undermined the pursuer's case. Accordingly, the pursuer was not entitled to rescind the Agreement or be relieved of its...

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_77
Parties
Pursuer: APCOA Parking (UK) Limited; Defender: Crosslands Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
30 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Proof
Outcome
pursuer's action refused
Legal Topics
Rescission, Material Breach, Repairing Obligations, Personal Bar, Construction Defects
Contract Law Property Law Construction Law Rescission Material Breach Repairing Obligations Personal Bar Construction Defects

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

Parties

APCOA Parking (UK) Limited

Pursuer

Crosslands Properties Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender was in material breach of contract entitling the pursuer to rescind the Agreement for Lease.
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer is personally barred from asserting material breach due to delay or conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the defects alleged constitute a radical defect going to the root of the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pursuer had not established that the defender was in material breach of contract entitling rescission. The defects alleged were either remedied, minor, or within the pursuer's own repairing obligations. The remedial works undertaken by the defender, including the application of Decseal waterproofing and other repairs, rendered the car park functional and fit for purpose. The pursuer was not personally barred from asserting breach, but the threshold for rescission was not met. The defender's withdrawal of the 2018 and 2020 Repair Notices further undermined the pursuer's case. Accordingly, the pursuer was not entitled to rescind the Agreement or be relieved of its...

Court Disposition

pursuer's action refused

Orders

  • The pursuer's action for declarator of rescission is refused.
  • No order for relief from future obligations under the Agreement or lease is granted.