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 ...
|
Reclaiming Motion:- Here the defender enrolled the reclaiming motion against an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary in which, following the hearing of a debate on the Procedure Roll, the Lord Ordinary allowed a proof before answer. In the case the pursuers seeks the costs of preventative measures to obviate an alleged risk of a similar landslip or erosion affecting the pursuers' garden ground in the event of future spates. It is claimed by the pursuers that the landslips or erosion which have occu ...
|
Reclaiming motion – Right of servitude/positive prescription. Appealed against interlocutor of Lord Ordinary at Proof before Answer in favour of servitude right of defender. Unbuilt ground beside warehouse had previously been used as a car park. Defender purchased this ground in 2003. Costly permanent vehicular access had been built by predecessors of defenders. Court considered that much of decision founded upon actions of predecessors of both pursuers and defender ...
|
Motion for Recall of Interim Interdict:- On 24 August 2006, interim interdict was granted, interdicting the defenders or anyone on their behalf from proceeding to carry out certain structural work to the common stair of the tenement building 53 Murray Place, Stirling. The dispute arose from proposals to carry out structural work in the common stair of the property by the defenders who were the proprietors of the top left flat and the top right flat in the tenement. The pursuers were the propriet ...
|
Motion for Summary Decree
The pursuers entered into a contract with the first defender for them to construct and sell to the pursuers a house at Blinkbonnie, Rockliffe, Dalbeattie. The first defender then contracted with an architect, whose duties included inspection of the construction work at certain stages, and issuing certificates. As a result of snagging issues, the pursuers moved out. They sold the house to other purchasers at a price of £240,000. They raised the action here seeking to recover damages from the defe ...
|
The pursuers purchased property comprising a tenement block in Dundee. A dispute arose as to what exactly comprised the subjects purchased by the pursuers and in particular whether the ground floor and basement premises were included within the sale. The court considered the missives concluded between the parties and the proper construction of these. The defenders lodged a counterclaim and the court examined questions of relevancy of the counterclaim.
|
Proof
The pursuers had craves for declarator, interdict and damages in respect of a in-filled land fill site adjacent to their property that caused water to flood their land and access roadway. The defenders averred that there was no natural drainage from the pursuers' field onto the defender's land, the two areas being almost level, before infilling. The defenders attributed the pursuers' flooding problems to the construction by them of an access road close to the boundary between the two properties ...
|
| 1 2 |