MARK LORIMER v. ROY GRIFFITHS [2013] ScotSC 87 (20 September 2013)

MARK LORIMER v. ROY GRIFFITHS [2013] ScotSC 87 (20 September 2013)

The decree did not require simultaneous inspection by all contractors; the appellant's willingness to allow the electrician to inspect at another time constituted compliance with the inspection condition. The sheriff erred by relying on irrelevant considerations and misinterpreting the decree. Even if strict compliance was not achieved, substantial compliance sufficed for discharge of the decree.

Citation
[2013] ScotSC 87
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Mark Lorimer; Defender and Appellant: Roy Griffiths
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
20 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Tenancy, Lease Interpretation, Compliance With Court Orders, Suspended Decree, Inspection Rights
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Property Law Statutory Tenancy Lease Interpretation Compliance With Court Orders Suspended Decree Inspection Rights

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Lorimer

Pursuer and Respondent

Roy Griffiths

Defender and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant complied with the second suspensive condition of the decree regarding inspection
  2. 2 Whether simultaneous inspection by all contractors was required
  3. 3 Whether substantial compliance suffices for discharge of decree

Ratio Decidendi

The decree did not require simultaneous inspection by all contractors; the appellant's willingness to allow the electrician to inspect at another time constituted compliance with the inspection condition. The sheriff erred by relying on irrelevant considerations and misinterpreting the decree. Even if strict compliance was not achieved, substantial compliance sufficed for discharge of the decree.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Sheriff's interlocutor of 21 December 2012 recalled
  • Part 1 of the decree of 24 May 2011 discharged