Sheriff Court case concerning an application by Edinburgh Woollen Mill to renew its lease of premises on the Lawnmarket in Edinburgh under the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949. Their landlords (trustees for the firm of Gold Brothers) were trading competitors and had served a notice to quit on the Woollen Mill requiring them to leave the premises at the end of the lease.

The 1949 Act allows a sheriff to determine that a tenancy be renewed for a period of up to a year at a rent, and on terms and conditions, that the sheriff thinks are reasonable. The purpose of the Act was to prevent small shopkeepers being evicted by speculators who purchased properties and gave the shopkeepers the option of either buying at an exorbitant price or being evicted.

After noting that the mischief which the Act was designed to address is no longer self-evident today and was not apparent in the circumstances surrounding the lease in question, the Sheriff refused the Woollen Mill’s application:

“[The 1949 Act] empowers, and requires, the court to act to avoid injustice, in the historic context of widespread economic oppression of small-scale shop traders. The types of protection envisaged includes allowing the trader time to relocate to another property, to preserve his business and goodwill, or to avoid the trader being forced out of business altogether through removal of premises from which to trade.

Turning to the present case, it is at once apparent that no such considerations exist. The parties have both known, since the defenders acquired the landlord’s interest approximately six years ago, that the lease would not be renewed consensually. That has left the pursuer plenty of time to anticipate and prepare for the trading realities that this would bring. The pursuer’s business will be somewhat diminished by ceasing trade from the premises, but otherwise continues uninterrupted, from its 300 other outlets. There is no threat to its goodwill or good name, as it can adapt other stores to carry their name, if they wish. The present dispute represents no more than an attempt to retain a highly successful site, and to keep it from a direct competitor. Such an attempt is understandable… ….It is, however, only an economic blow. It is not an injustice, and there is nothing unreasonable in requiring the pursuer to remove at the end of the lease.”

 The full judgment is available from Scottish courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.