Reclaiming Motion
This is a reclaiming motion against an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in an action of reduction whereby he reduced a Sheriff Court decree pronounced in absence on 4 February 1993. The relevant part of the Lord Ordinary's Interlocuter stated:- "The Sheriff, in absence, Found and Declared that the Pursuer [the present defender] has a Servitude of Access, both vehicular and pedestrian, over the road leading from the main road to her croft, as shown on the plan annexed and executed as relative to ...
|
Appeal to Sheriff Principal following Debate
The parties to this action are adjoining proprietors of subjects in High Street, Dysart. The action concerns a dispute about an area of ground which gives access to both properties.The two properties served by the mutual access way were until 1989 held on the same title. They comprised one property on which was built the dwellinghouse presently owned and occupied by the defenders and appellants. In 1989 the then owner of the whole subjects sold the part of the subjects on which the appellants' d ...
|
Action of Division and Sale
This action relates to a hearing on a Report by Andrew Rettie FRICS, a partner in Strutt & Parker, in an action of division and sale. The particular dispute before the Court raised an issue as to the capacity in which a Reporter, appointed by the Court in terms of Rule of Court 45, acts when he conducts the sale of heritable property. By an interlocutor dated 12 May 2004, the Reporter was appointed to conduct the sale of Ardpatrick Estate, Argyll. Edan, Damon and Alistair Kenneil, who were respe ...
|
Property-Servitude Right of Access - Appeal to She
A dispute arose between neighbouring proprietors following the Respondents erecting various obstructions on the footpath belonging to them on the south side of the Appellants' property. The appellants sought an interdict, interdicting the respondents from building on, obstructing or occupying these common areas so as to impede the appellants' rights of pedestrian and vehicular access and nterim interdict. The Sheriff at first instance held that:- 1) there was no primae facia case and 2) esto the ...
|
| 1 |