Case concerning rights to air conditioning apparatus overhanging a neighbouring property. In 2007 Mr Nikolic bought land neighbouring Compugraphics factory at Eastfield Industrial Estate in Glenrothes. He asked Compugraphics to remove the overhanging pipes, ductwork and supporting stantions (which had been in place since 1971) from his land. Compugraphics raised an action claiming that either (1) they owned the pipes and were entitled to retain them in place free from interference by ...
|
The pursuers were a limited company engaged in the development and sale of houses. The defender was a businessman. The parties exchanged missives between May 2006 and August 2007 under which the defender agreed to purchase property from the pursuers. The property required to be extensively remodelled to meet the defender’s specifications. The price of the property and works was in excess of £3 million. The missives contained a mechanism for establishing a date of entry by reference to ...
|
This was an appeal against a Sheriff’s decision to grant decree in favour of the pursuers in an action for payment. The parties had entered into Missives, on conclusion of which part of the purchase price was paid. The defender and appellant then indicated to the pursuers and respondents that he was ‘not in a position’ to proceed with the purchase. An action was raised for payment of the balance of price said to be due, plus accrued interest. The issue on appeal was whether, when told the purcha ...
|
Inner House: Appeal; The pursuers were the owners of a linolium factory. They agreed to sell surplus land at their factory site to the defenders. The defenders obtained permission for developement of a supermarket over the Subjects of an adjoining site owned by Fife Enterprise. Appeal of decision by Lord Ordinary determining the nature of the title to be given by the pursuers to the defenders in terms of clause 10 of the missives. Interpretation of missives. Disputed: whether the wording of clau ...
|
Reparation: Action for damages. The pursuers were an investment company. Their primary shareholder, Mr Houlgate had been introduced to a fraudster, John M. Cameron. Mr Cameron illicited funds from the pursuers for investment in a company called Securimax. When he invited the pursuers to invest £500,000 in the company, the pursuers required security for the loan. Mr Cameron advised that he owned a property called Balbuthie Farm. The true owner of the property was a Mr John Bell Cameron. Mr J.M.Ca ...
|
The Pursuers brought an appeal by summary application under Section 14 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 against a notice served on them by the Defenders as local planning authority. The notice required the Pursuers to remove a section of fence and hedge from their property to allow a gap of no less than 2 metres. The Pursuers maintained that the fence, which was erected in 2004, did not interfere with any access rights as it had been erected before the relevant part of the 2003 A ...
|
This case is related to the decision in Snowie v Stirling Council and The Ramblers Association (Sheriff A Cubie, Stirling Sheriff Court – 23rd April 2008). The Pursuers in this case lived at the West Lodge on Boquhan Estate. Over a period of years, many pedestrians had taken access to the Estate. There were two sets of gates allowing access to the Estate, both for vehicles and pedestrians. In 2003 one set of pedestrian gates was locked. The owners of the Estate, the Snowies, were the key h ...
|
The Pursuers were the heritable proprietors of Boquhan Estate in Kippen. Over a period of years, many pedestrians had taken access to the Estate. There were two sets of gates allowing access to the Estate, both for vehicles and pedestrians. In 2003 one set of pedestrian gates was locked. The First Defenders, Stirling Council, received complaints about this but, despite discussions, the Pursuers refused to open the gates. In 2006 the first Defenders issued the Pursuers with a written notice alleg ...
|
Appeal from the Sheriff Court:- This action related to a boundary dispute between neighbouring proprietors in Stirlingshire. The pursuer raised an action in the sheriff court for decree ordaining the defender to uplift and remove all building materials in the disputed area and interdict to prevent him from entering into the disputed area to carry out any building works. The defenders lodged a counterclaim which contained a number of craves including declarator that the defender was the heritable ...
|
Appeal – Action for Interdict - Title and Interest to enforce Title Conditions - Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 Section 8(3)(a) The Pursuers/Appellants raised an action for an interdict against the Defender/Respondent, their neighbour in a small rural housing development. The parties' titles were all subject to burdens and conditions specified in a Deed of Conditions. Condition Third provided that each property "shall be used and occupied by the proprietors as a domestic dw ...
|
| 1 2 3 |