Co-Operative Insurance Society Ltd v Halfords Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1997 |
| Date | 31 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No 22 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE
Lord Penrose
PracticeLandlord and tenantLeaseConstructionLease of premises in shopping centreTenant to use and occupy the premises for certain purposes throughout whole period of leaseWhether reasonable to imply that premises should be opened within ordinary business hoursWhether landlords entitled to specific implement
Landlords let retail premises in a shopping centre to tenants. The tenants decided to cease trading and to move their local trading operations to a new superstore. The landlords thereafter sought interdict preventing the tenants from vacating or removing from the units and from displenishing them. The landlords sought (1) declarator that the tenants were bound to use and occupy the premises as a retail shop within the scope of the user clause in the lease until lawfully terminated; (2) an order for implement of the obligations so to use and occupy the premises; (3) interdict against other uses; (4) interdict from vacating or removing from the premises; and (5) interdict from displenishing the premises. In June 1978 the tenants had agreed to lease the premises until November 2000. Clause 5(a) provided that the tenants were to use the premises for the sale and repair of cycles, tricycles, mopeds, auto accessories and related motoring components; clause 5(b) obliged the tenants to use and occupy the premises for the foregoing purposes throughout the period of the lease. The landlords obtained interim interdict against the tenants vacating, removing or displenishing the premises when the case called before the Lord Ordinary (Hamilton). At a full hearing, the landlords argued that clause 5 was sufficiently precise and obliged the tenants to keep the premises open during ordinary business hours for some or all of the permitted activities. In any event, that obligation could be implied in order to give the lease business efficacy. The landlords contended that it was reasonable to imply that the premises should be opened within the tenants' ordinary business hours and that the landlords had a counterpart obligation to open the centre during ordinary business hours. Such an obligation was enforceable and the landlords were entitled to choose between accepting a repudiatory breach and claiming damages or insisting on specific implement. The tenants, however, contended that clause 5 merely restated common law obligations of possession and use and there was no room for any implied term.
Held (1) that although the requirement under clause 5(b) that the tenants use and occupy the premises for the foregoing purposes referred back to clause 5(a) and read together the tenants had a duty continuously to use and occupy the premises as a retail shop for some or all of the specified business activities throughout the period of the lease, the tenants were not obliged under the lease to trade during normal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Highland & Universal Properties Ltd v Safeway Properties Ltd (No.2)
...651 Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) LtdELR [1998] AC 1 Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Halfords LtdSC 1998 SC 212 Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd v Saxone Ltd 1997 SLT 1052 Coutts v CouttsUNK (1861) 4 M 802 Dempster (R & J) Ltd v Motherwell Bridge & Eng......
-
Nickel Developments Ltd. v. Canada Safeway Ltd. et al., 2001 MBCA 79
...Supermarkets Ltd., [1995] S.L.T. 1181 (Scot. Sess. Ct. O.H.), refd to. [para. 47]. Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. v. Halfords Ltd., [1998] S.C. 212 (Scot. O.H.), refd to. [para. Highland and Universal Properties Ltd. v. Safeway Properties Ltd., [2000] S.C. 297 (Scot. I.H.), refd to. [p......
-
Britel Fund Trustees Limited V. Scottish And Southern Energy Plc
...than those of the contractual obligation (Retail Parks, per Lord Cullen at 245; Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Halfords Ltd 1998 SC 212, per Lord Penrose at 226H-227A). An order for specific implement must be precise, so as to make the defenders aware of what is required of them (Reta......
-
Highland And Universal Properties Limited V. Safeway Properties Limited
...Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited v. Saxone Limited 1997 S.L.T. 1052 and Co-operative Insurance Society Limited v. Halfords Limited 1998 S.C. 212. Whereas the court in Scotland had a residual discretion to refuse to make such orders, the question only arose in circumstances where the o......