Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Pursuers and appellants: Sutherland; Davidson Chalmers LLP (for Stronachs LLP, Aberdeen)
Defender and respondent: Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw QC; Anderson Strathern LLP
The issue [1] The issue in this appeal is whether, in respect of a lease governed by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, in terms of which the landlords have served on the tenant a notice to quit which is disputed by the tenant, and the dispute proceeds to arbitration, section 23(4) of the Act has the effect that the lease continues and rent remains due and payable until the date of issue of the arbiter’s award. Resolution of that issue is, essentially, a matter of statutory interpretation.
The factual background [2] The parties entered into a lease of Pitcow Farm, Whiterashes, Aberdeenshire in terms of a lease dated 30 September 1975. The pursuers and appellants were the landlords in terms of this lease, and the defender and respondent was the tenant. The tenant took possession on 28 May 1976. Rent was paid in arrears at the terms of Martinmas and Whitsunday. The ish was Whitsunday 1986. Thereafter the lease continued by operation of tacit relocation.
[3] Between 1996 and 2001 the tenant failed to pay a number of instalments of rent. On 4 October 2001 the landlords’ agents served a “demand to remedy” notice requiring the tenant to pay the outstanding rent. He did not do so.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.