Image from Google Jackets

Walker v Strathclyde RC

Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; 1990 SLT 17-20(4)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: LT for Scotland 22 March 1989. A head teacher applied to the council, of which she was a tenant to purchase the house which she occupied. This was refused. She appealed to LT. The council submitted that as their title to the house reserved a right of reversion to the superior in the event of the house ceasing to be used for educational purposes, they were unable to grant a good and marketable title to the house as required by Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 they also claimed that the tenancy was not a secure one as the house was within the curtilage of a building mainly held by the landlord for purposes other than the provision of housing accommodation and rights of access would have to be granted over the playground. It was held that the title provision was irrelevant and the existence of a restrictive covenant did not necessarily prevent the tribunal finding that a tenant had a right to purchase; that the tribunal had no powers to vary or discharge land obligations in the landlords tit
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42385 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 36490-1001

LT for Scotland 22 March 1989. A head teacher applied to the council, of which she was a tenant to purchase the house which she occupied. This was refused. She appealed to LT. The council submitted that as their title to the house reserved a right of reversion to the superior in the event of the house ceasing to be used for educational purposes, they were unable to grant a good and marketable title to the house as required by Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 they also claimed that the tenancy was not a secure one as the house was within the curtilage of a building mainly held by the landlord for purposes other than the provision of housing accommodation and rights of access would have to be granted over the playground. It was held that the title provision was irrelevant and the existence of a restrictive covenant did not necessarily prevent the tribunal finding that a tenant had a right to purchase; that the tribunal had no powers to vary or discharge land obligations in the landlords tit