Alexander v Royal Hotel (Caithness) Ltd
Alexander v Royal Hotel (Caithness) Ltd
- 2001
- Estates Gazette [2001] 16 EG 148-158(11) .
CS: IH 6 October 2000. Appellant (A) held a lease on an agricultural holding acquired by the respondent (R). A withheld rent because R had failed in their obligation to repair the farm buildings. A refused to meet R's demand to pay rent arrears, so R served a notice to quit under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 s22(2)(d). An arbiter was appointed by the parties, who made an interim award stating that A was entitled to withhold rent if R was in breach of their obligations, and allowed proof to confirm this. R instigated a case, whereby the sheriff decided that under the 1991 Act, the arbiter was not entitled to consider A's liability for rent and A's common law right to keep back rent where R was in breach was no defence. A appealed, which was allowed: the issues raised by A as to his liability to pay rent had to be resolved by arbitration as outlined in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 s60(1); there is nothing in s22(2)(d) incompatible with the common law principle regarding the question of whether rent is due and a notice to quit would therefore be invalid. Copy of judgement available on http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/0_66_17(4)_98.html
ALEXANDER V ROYAL HOTEL (CAITHNESS) LTD
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1991
WITHHOLDING
REPAIRING OBLIGATIONS
NOTICE TO QUIT
SCOTTISH LAW
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
CS: IH 6 October 2000. Appellant (A) held a lease on an agricultural holding acquired by the respondent (R). A withheld rent because R had failed in their obligation to repair the farm buildings. A refused to meet R's demand to pay rent arrears, so R served a notice to quit under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 s22(2)(d). An arbiter was appointed by the parties, who made an interim award stating that A was entitled to withhold rent if R was in breach of their obligations, and allowed proof to confirm this. R instigated a case, whereby the sheriff decided that under the 1991 Act, the arbiter was not entitled to consider A's liability for rent and A's common law right to keep back rent where R was in breach was no defence. A appealed, which was allowed: the issues raised by A as to his liability to pay rent had to be resolved by arbitration as outlined in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 s60(1); there is nothing in s22(2)(d) incompatible with the common law principle regarding the question of whether rent is due and a notice to quit would therefore be invalid. Copy of judgement available on http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/0_66_17(4)_98.html
ALEXANDER V ROYAL HOTEL (CAITHNESS) LTD
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1991
WITHHOLDING
REPAIRING OBLIGATIONS
NOTICE TO QUIT
SCOTTISH LAW
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION