Hunter v. Strachan [1916] ScotLR 725 (11 July 1916)

Hunter v. Strachan [1916] ScotLR 725 (11 July 1916)

The tenant's letter of 13th May 1914 did not constitute clear and explicit notice of intention to terminate the lease at the break; it was a request for better terms, not unequivocal notice, and thus did not effect termination under the lease.

Citation
[1916] ScotLR 725
Parties
Appellant: William Jopp Chambers Hunter; Applicant and Respondent: John Strachan
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
11 July 1916
Procedural Posture
Special Case (appeal From Land Court) / Court of Session Inner House Second Division Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; question answered in the negative; Land Court's decision reversed.
Legal Topics
Lease Termination, Notice Requirements, Small Holdings, Appeal Competency
Landlord and Tenant Agricultural Law Civil Procedure Lease Termination Notice Requirements Small Holdings Appeal Competency

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

Parties

William Jopp Chambers Hunter

Appellant

John Strachan

Applicant and Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Case (appeal From Land Court) / Court of Session Inner House Second Division Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant's letter of 13th May 1914 constituted valid notice to terminate the lease at the break in Whitsunday 1915
  2. 2 Whether appeal to the Court of Session was competent from a single member's decision of the Land Court

Ratio Decidendi

The tenant's letter of 13th May 1914 did not constitute clear and explicit notice of intention to terminate the lease at the break; it was a request for better terms, not unequivocal notice, and thus did not effect termination under the lease.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; question answered in the negative; Land Court's decision reversed.

Orders

  • The tenant's letter did not constitute valid notice to terminate the lease at Whitsunday 1915.
  • The lease continued beyond Whitsunday 1915; the applicant was not a statutory small tenant.