EASTMOOR LLP v KEITH BULMAN [2014] ScotSC 85 (05 August 2014)

EASTMOOR LLP v KEITH BULMAN [2014] ScotSC 85 (05 August 2014)

The tenancy agreement does not comply with section 18(6) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 because it merely refers to grounds by number without specifying their essential ingredients, and misleadingly suggests the landlord can unilaterally terminate the lease. Therefore, the action for recovery of possession is incompetent and must be dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ScotSC 85
Parties
Pursuer: Eastmoor LLP; Defender: Keith Bulman
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Summary Cause for Recovery of Possession / Preliminary Hearing, Judgment
Outcome
dismissed
Legal Topics
Short Assured Tenancy, Recovery of Possession, Contractual Tenancy, Statutory Grounds for Possession
Landlord and Tenant Housing Law Short Assured Tenancy Recovery of Possession Contractual Tenancy Statutory Grounds for Possession

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eastmoor LLP

Pursuer

Keith Bulman

Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Cause for Recovery of Possession / Preliminary Hearing, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy agreement complies with section 18(6) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 for recovery of possession during contractual tenancy
  2. 2 Whether reference to statutory grounds by number without essential ingredients suffices under section 18(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The tenancy agreement does not comply with section 18(6) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 because it merely refers to grounds by number without specifying their essential ingredients, and misleadingly suggests the landlord can unilaterally terminate the lease. Therefore, the action for recovery of possession is incompetent and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed under SCR 2002, rule 8.3(1).