Ben Cleuch Estates Ltd v Scottish Enterprise [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] CSIH 1 CA38/05 4 January 2008. Appeal against a decision made on 1 March 2006 in favour of B (see L133211). Considered whether a break notice had been validly served by S on a property acquired on 14 October 2002. S had the benefit of a break option to terminate the lease 10 years early and sought to exercise that option, serving a formal notice of this intention. However, the notice was served on an associated company, Bonnytoun Estates Ltd. B contented that the notice was invalid and consequently raised court proceedings for the lease to continue until 2016. S argued that because B was a subsidiary of Bonnytoun Estates Ltd, the companies had the same registered office and company director, that was all that was required. As a secondary argument, S presented evidence of invoices issued by the B's agent that indicated that B was acting on behalf of Bonnytoun Estates Ltd. "Held": Court rejected the previous decision and ruled in favour of S. S justifiably believed that Bonnytoun was the landlord and were entitled to think that the break notice should be addresed to Bonnytoun.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 145736-2001 |
[2008] CSIH 1 CA38/05 4 January 2008. Appeal against a decision made on 1 March 2006 in favour of B (see L133211). Considered whether a break notice had been validly served by S on a property acquired on 14 October 2002. S had the benefit of a break option to terminate the lease 10 years early and sought to exercise that option, serving a formal notice of this intention. However, the notice was served on an associated company, Bonnytoun Estates Ltd. B contented that the notice was invalid and consequently raised court proceedings for the lease to continue until 2016. S argued that because B was a subsidiary of Bonnytoun Estates Ltd, the companies had the same registered office and company director, that was all that was required. As a secondary argument, S presented evidence of invoices issued by the B's agent that indicated that B was acting on behalf of Bonnytoun Estates Ltd. "Held": Court rejected the previous decision and ruled in favour of S. S justifiably believed that Bonnytoun was the landlord and were entitled to think that the break notice should be addresed to Bonnytoun.