Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
IAN DUNCAN AGAINST GLASA LLP [2020] ScotCS CSOH_26 (03 March 2020)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2020/2020_CSOH_26.html
Cite as:
2020 SCLR 821,
2020 GWD 16-226,
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_26,
[2020] CSOH 26
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Page 1 ⇓
CA137/18
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
OPINION OF LORD ERICHT
In the cause
IAN DUNCAN
against
GLASA LLP
[2020] CSOH 26
Pursuer
Defender
Pursuer: Simpson QC, McLelland; Drummond Miller LLP
Defenders: Mure QC, Massaro; CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
3 March 2020
[1] This is one of three cases arising out of an aborted project for a hydroelectric dam
and turbine on the Kildermorie Estate. The cases are all commercial actions. At the
Procedural Hearing the commercial judge allowed a diet of debate and appointed parties to
lodge a joint list of questions for the court. I was informed by parties that the intention was
that further procedure, including matters of specification, would be ordered in due course
depending on the answers to these questions. The cause called before me for a debate on the
agreed joint questions. In this opinion, I shall, after having set out the background, address
each question in turn. The questions deal with issues in the three cases as a whole, and are
not ascribed to a particular case. I shall treat this opinion as the lead opinion applicable to
all three cases.
Page 2 ⇓
2
Background
[2] Prior to the hydro electric project, Kildermorie Estate was owned by the Duncan
family. The Estate as a whole was managed by the Kildermorie Partnership (“KP”). The
partners of KP were Ian Alexander Duncan (“Mr Duncan”), Carol Hammond Duncan and
Alexander James Duncan. Heritable title to the Kildermorie Estate was divided, with part of
the Estate being owned by KP, part of the estate being owned by Mr Duncan in a personal
capacity and part of the estate being owned jointly by Mr and Mrs Duncan.
[3] In outline, the proposed hydro electric project was for a joint venture with an
electricity company, SSE Generation Limited (“SSE”) for the construction of a new hydro
electric dam and turbine house on the estate and the sharing of the profits of that new
scheme. A small existing hydroelectric scheme on the Kildermorie estate was to be
incorporated into the project.
[4] A Limited Liability Partnership (“Glasa LLP”) was set up as a joint venture vehicle
for the project. A Limited Liability Partnership Agreement (the “Agreement”) was entered
into dated 20 and 21 June 2010. The parties to the Agreement were KP and SSE. KP entered
into the Agreement in pursuance of its business of managing Kildermorie Estate. Recital D
stated:
“The Parties have agreed to enter into a joint venture through the vehicle of an LLP
in order to operate in business together and in particular from the Date of
Commissioning to operate the Kildermorie Hydro Electric Scheme and to effect the
Glasa Hydro Scheme Development for their mutual benefit as afternoted, utilising
their respective facilities and areas of expertise”
[5] Certain conveyancing documentation was entered into in relation to the Scheme as
follows:
Page 3 ⇓
3
(1) Deed of Servitude dated 21 June 2010 granted by Mr Duncan in favour of KP
over land in the Kildermorie Estate owned by Mr Duncan (the “IAD
Servitude”);
(2) Deed of Servitude dated 21 June 2010 granted by KP in favour of Glasa LLP
over land in the Kildermorie Estate owned by KP (the “KP Servitude”);
(3) Disposition dated 21 June 2010 by KP to Glasa LLP whereby KP conveyed to
Glasa LLP part of the Kildermorie Estate owned by KP which was to be the
site of the turbine house, together with the servitude rights (and under the
servitude conditions) in the IAD Servitude;
(4) Disposition dated 21 June 2010 by KP to Glasa LLP whereby KP conveyed to
Glasa LLP part of the Kildermorie Estate owned by KP which was to be the
site of the reservoir and dam, together with the servitude rights (and under
the servitude conditions) in the IAD Servitude and the KP Servitude.
[6] SSE had an option to terminate the Agreement and wind up the LLP (clause 17.1 of
the Agreement). SSE exercised this option in 2014.
[7] The three commercial court actions arise in relation to the consequences of the
termination, in particular in respect of activities undertaken on the estate prior to the
termination and remedial works.
[8] In the current case, Mr Duncan sues Glasa LLP in respect of construction works,
remedial works, damage to roads, tree felling and loss of value of the estate due to reduction
of deer numbers as the result of vehicular access and tree felling and Mr Duncan’s
management time. He sues under the Agreement (on the basis that he has a ius quaesitum
tertio) and under the IAD Servitude.
Page 4 ⇓
4
[9] In the case of Kildermorie Partnership v Glasa LLP (CA 138/18), KP sues Glasa LLP in
respect of construction works, damage to roads, loss of income and profit from shooting and
holiday lets, tree felling, Mr Duncan’s time and solatium.
[10] In the case of the Kildermorie Partnership v SSE (CA139/18), KP seeks to enforce SSE’s
obligations under the Agreement to put Glasa LLP in funds, so that Glasa LLP is in a
financial position to meet awards made by the court if KP or Mr Duncan, as the case may be,
is successful in the other two actions.
Terms of the Glasa LLP Limited Liability Partnership agreement between Kildermorie
Partnership and SSE
[11] The Limited Liability Partnership agreement between the Kildermorie Partnership
and SSE included the following provisions:
“1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION
1.1 In this Agreement, the following expressions shall, unless otherwise specified
or the context otherwise requires, have the meanings set opposite them
respectively:
…
Access Roads means the existing tracks and new tracks to be constructed on
the Subjects and the Property all as shown per the solid green, solid pink,
solid purple and broken pink and broken orange lines on Plan A;
…
The Act means the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2000;
…
Business means the business of owning, developing and operating the Hydro
Scheme Developments for the purpose of harnessing water power to generate
electricity on the Property;
…
Page 5 ⇓
5
Commencement Date means the date of the final execution of this
Agreement;
Commencement of Construction means the date on which the LLP notifies
KP in writing, giving no less than 7 days’ notice, using the style of notice set
out in Part 13 of the Schedule that it intends to initiate the Glasa Hydro
Scheme Development under the Planning Permission and to take first entry
onto the Subjects, excluding any operations relating to site investigations;
…
Date of Commissioning means (other than intermittent exportation of
electricity for testing purposes prior to commissioning of the Glasa Hydro
Scheme Development), the date on which electricity is first commercially
exported from the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development;
…
Dispositions means the disposition by Ian Alexander Duncan and
Mrs Carol Hammond Duncan as Partners of and Trustees for the firm of
Kildermorie Partnership in favour of the LLP in respect of the generating station
site for the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development and the disposition by
Ian Alexander Duncan and Mrs Carol Hammond Duncan as Partners of and
Trustees for the firm of Kildermorie Partnership in favour of the LLP in respect
of the site for the reservoir and dam for the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development,
each in the form agreed by or on behalf of KP and SSE;
…
Expiry Date means 85 years from the Commencement Date;
…
Glasa Hydro Scheme Development means the construction, maintenance
and operation, (and if applicable) decommissioning, removal and site
restoration of a hydro-electric generating scheme together with all necessary
ancillary plant, Electricity and Telecommunication Cables, buildings, dam,
reservoir and equipment required for generating electricity situated on the
Subjects are shown indicatively on Plan A and Plan B and pursuant to the
Planning Permission;
…
Guarantee means a parent company guarantee in terms of Clauses 17.8
and 20 hereof;
Page 6 ⇓
6
…
Hydro Scheme Developments means the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development
and, following its conveyance to the LLP in accordance with this Agreement,
the Kildermorie Hydro Scheme;
…
Kildermorie Hydro Scheme means the existing operational hydro scheme as
at the Date of Commissioning owned by KP and located on the Property
together with all related necessary ancillary plant, Electricity and
Telecommunications Cables, buildings, dam, reservoir and equipment
required for generating electricity situated on the Property and/or the
Subjects all as shown outlined in red on Plan B;
LLP means the limited liability partnership to be incorporated in Scotland
under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 pursuant to this
Agreement;
Members means (subject to any such person ceasing to be a Member in
accordance with this Agreement) SSE and KP and any persons who are from
time to time admitted as members of the LLP in accordance with the terms of
this Agreement and the Act;
…
Plan A means the plan of the Property, identified as Plan A and annexed at
Part 1 of the Schedule or such substitute plan as KP and SSE may agree;
Plan B means the plan identified as Plan B and annexed at Part 1 of the
Schedule or such substitute plan as KP and SSE may agree;
…
Planning Permission means the consent under section 36 of the Electricity
Act 1989 (as amended) to be obtained by SSE following its Application of
10 December 2009 per Schedule Part 4 in respect of a generating scheme at
Kildermorie, permission under the Town & Country Planning (Scotland)
Act 1997, and authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled
Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2005, and such other statutory consents and
permissions as may be required at the time to enable the Hydro Scheme
Development to proceed;
…
Property means the property at Kildermorie Estate, Alness, Ross-shire
outlined in red on Plan A;
Page 7 ⇓
7
Property Documents means the Dispositions, the disposition by
Ian Alexander Duncan in favour of Himself and Mrs Carol Hammond Duncan
the Partners of and Trustees for the Kildermorie Partnership in respect of the
site for the generating station for the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development, the
deed of servitude by Ian Alexander Duncan in favour of Himself and
Mrs Carol Hammond Duncan the Partners of and Trustees for the Kildermorie
Partnership, and the deed of servitude by Ian Alexander Duncan and
Mrs Carol Hammond Duncan as Partners of and Trustees for Kildermorie
Partnership in favour of Glasa LLP each on the form agreed by or on behalf of
SSE and KP;
Record of Condition means the written and photographic record of the
condition of the Subjects and the Access Roads produced by the parties (i) in
respect of the land to be used for the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development prior
to the Commencement of Construction and in accordance with Clause 27.2
and (ii) in respect of the Kildermorie Hydro Scheme; such record of condition
to be completed in any event at the sole expense of SSE, and by agreement
between the Members; and failing agreement as to its terms to be prepared
by such independent chartered surveyor as may be appointed (on the
application of either Member) by the Chairman of the Scottish branch of the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; the said Record of Condition
following completion to be signed by the parties hereto as relative to this
Agreement;
…
Restoration Period means the period of time following the Expiry Date
during which the LLP whom failing KP (being able to call upon the
Guarantee and such further financial provision as may have reasonably been
required by the Authorities) shall carry out decommissioning, restoration and
removal works of the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development;
…
Servitudes means the servitudes granted from time to time by KP and by
Ian Alexander Duncan in favour of the LLP as owner of the Subjects;
…
Subjects means the subjects from time to time owned by the LLP and
forming part of the Property on Plan A as such subjects may be amended or
increased pursuant (i) to the conveyance to the LLP of the Kildermorie Hydro
Scheme pursuant to Clause 27.1 and (ii) to any Additional Disposition and
including, where the context permits, the Servitudes;
Table of Tree Crop Compensation means the table of crop compensation in
respect of areas of trees to be felled forming Part 11 of the Schedule which
Page 8 ⇓
8
shows the compensation payable per hectare of trees according to their age
and yield class indexed in accordance with the Forestry Commission
Standing Timber Price Index, as may be in force at the time.
…
1.2.8
A reference to a party is a reference to a party to this Agreement and, subject
to Clause 15, a reference to a party includes a reference to that party’s
successors in title, assignees and transferees (in any).
…
2. COMMENCEMENT
…
2.2 Immediately following incorporation of the LLP, KP shall deliver the duly
executed Disposition to SSE which SSE shall register on behalf of the LLP.
2.3 The LLP shall subsist until the Expiry Date unless and until the LLP shall
previously be wound up in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or
the provisions of the Act.
…
6.
MANAGEMENT
6.1 Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement or as may otherwise
be agreed by the members in writing:
6.1.1 all matters regarding the control or management of the Business and
the operation of the LLP shall be determined by the Members;
6.1.2
the approval of a Member or Members holding over 50% of the
Relevant Percentages shall be sufficient to determine any matter, such
approval to be either by way of a written resolution which is
circulated to all Members (provided that the same shall be deemed to
be passed no earlier than three Business Days after its circulation but
thereafter as soon as it has been approved by Members holding
over 50% of the Relevant Percentages) or at a meeting of the Board in
accordance with the following provisions of this Clause 6.
…
6.4 Unless determined otherwise by the Members, SSE is authorised on behalf of
the LLP to undertake the matters set out in Part 10 of the Schedule and, to the
extent that the LLP proceeds with the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development,
Page 9 ⇓
9
SSE will act in accordance with the standards that may be expected of a
reasonable and prudent developer of hydro electricity generation schemes.
…
8. FINANCING OF THE LLP
…
8.2 On the date of this Agreement, SSE shall pay £50 to the LLP by way of capital
contribution. KP shall, pursuant to the Property Documents, transfer the
Subjects in terms thereof and thereafter be deemed to have made a Capital
Contribution to the LLP in the amount of £1,000,000. On the date of this
Agreement KP shall procure the execution and delivery to the LLP or its
advisers of the Property Documents.
8.3 SSE shall at its sole discretion determine from time to time the amount of
additional capital or other form of funding that it contributes to the LLP in
order to fund the LLP’s construction, development and operation of the
Hydro Scheme Developments, provided that, to the extent to which the Glasa
Hydro Scheme Development is progressed, all funding for the costs incurred
by the LLP in the Hydro Scheme Developments shall be contributed by SSE
together with, in each case when the same become payable, amounts equal to
the general administrative costs of the LLP and the amounts set out in
Clause 22 as payable to KP, and SSE shall make such contributions to the LLP
accordingly.
…
12. OBLIGATIONS OF THE MEMBERS RELATING TO THE HYDRO
SCHEME DEVELOPMENTS
12.1 KP shall provide at its own expense such local monitoring and other service
facilities in relation to the Hydro Scheme Developments as specified in Part 6
of the Schedule and as the Members may reasonably determine as
appropriate.
12.2 KP shall comply with the obligations set out in Part 6 of the Schedule.
12.3 SSE shall, and shall procure that the LLP shall, comply with the obligations
set out in Part 7 of the Schedule.
12.4 The parties shall adopt the Record of Condition prepared by the parties prior
to the Commencement of Construction of the Glasa Hydro Scheme
Development.
Page 10 ⇓
10
12.5 The planning application in respect of the Glasa Hydro Scheme development
is appended as Part 4 of the Schedule.
12.6 SSE shall, to the extent necessary for the operation of the LLP’s business and
permitted by applicable law and regulation, use the consent under Section 36
of the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) for the Glasa Hydro Scheme
Development, the Controlled Activities Regulations licence for the Glasa
Hydro Scheme Development and the Schedule 5 Licence for the Glasa Hydro
Scheme Development (the Consents) for the lawful operation of the Glasa
Hydro Scheme Development and shall exhibit the Consents to KP if
requested to do so.
12.7 In the event that:
12.7.1 Commencement of Construction of the Glasa Hydro Scheme
Development has not occurred within 5 years of the Final Consent
Date, and/or
12.7.2 Commencement of Construction has occurred but the LLP has ceased
to complete material construction of the Glasa Hydro Scheme
Development within 5 years of Commencement of Construction:
KP shall be entitled but not bound to terminate this Agreement and either to
wind up the LLP or to require SSE to transfer its interest to KP or to its
nominee for a consideration equal to the greater of (a) £1 or (b) the aggregate
of any amounts standing to the credit of any account of the LLP and which
may subsequently be paid to the LLP in respect of the period prior to
termination, less any sums due and payable to KP at the date of such
termination.
…
15.4.4 The assumption by any Family Member as a partner of KP or the resignation
of any partner of KP shall not require the consent of the Members but KP
shall as soon as practicable notify the other Members of such assumption or
resignation.
…
15.7 KP hereby warrants that it is entering into the arrangements contemplated by
this Agreement in pursuance of its existing business of manging the wider
Property.
…
Page 11 ⇓
11
17. TERMINATION / CONTINUATION
17.1 Without prejudice to the terms of Clause 17.7 hereof, SSE shall have the
option to terminate this Agreement and to wind up the LLP, (unless during
the applicable notice period KP notifies SSE that it wishes to acquire, or
procure that its nominee shall acquire, SSE’s interest for the greater of (a) £1
or (b) the aggregate of any amounts standing to the credit of any account of
the LLP and which may subsequently be paid to the LLP in respect of the
period prior to termination, less any sums due and payable to KP at the date
of such termination (a Transfer Notice) in which case SSE shall transfer its
interest for such consideration):
17.1.1 prior to the Commencement of Construction by giving not less than
three months written notice to KP to that effect and at the expiry of
said notice this Agreement shall terminate and, unless a valid Transfer
Notice has been given, the LLP shall be wound up; and
17.1.2 at any time following the Commencement of Construction by giving
not less than twelve months’ prior written notice and at the expiry of
said notice the Agreement shall terminate and unless a valid Transfer
Notice has been given the LLP shall be wound up;
declaring that in the event that SSE exercises this option to terminate this
Agreement the LLP shall be obliged to continue to pay all sums due
hereunder up to the date of such termination, and to effect reinstatement in
terms of 17.7.
…
17.3 Upon the termination of this Agreement, pursuant to Clause 16 where KP is
the Defaulting Member, SSE shall have the option either to:
17.3.1 procure that the LLP shall grant a lease in the form set out in Part 12
of the Schedule to SSE or another SSE Group Member, then procure
that the LLP shall reconvey to KP the Subjects for £1 and then acquire,
or procure that another SSE Group Member shall acquire, the interest
of KP (save for any rights to the Subjects) for a consideration equal to
any element of KP’s Capital Contribution which has been made in
cash and the return of any other cash standing to the credit of the KP
Current Account; or
17.3.2 require KP or its nominee to acquire SSE’s interest and in
consideration thereof procure that the LLP grants SSE or another SSE
Group Member nominated by SSE a lease in the form set out in Part 12
of the Schedule.
17.4 The termination of the Agreement howsoever caused shall be without
prejudice to any obligations, rights or liabilities of any of the Members which
Page 12 ⇓
12
have accrued prior to such termination or claims which any Member may
have against another for antecedent breach and shall not affect any provision
of this Agreement which is expressly or by implication provided to come into
effect on or continue in effect after termination (including, without limitation,
Clause 17.3).
17.5 The provisions of Clause 8 of this Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect and continue to be enforceable in accordance with their terms
notwithstanding that the Member ceases to be a Member. The termination of
Membership does not affect the rights and obligations of any party accrued
under this Agreement as at the date of this Agreement, and those rights and
obligations shall continue to be enforceable in accordance with their terms.
17.6 SSE in hereby authorised to execute on behalf of the LLP a lease in favour of
SSE or its nominee in the form set out in Part 12 of the Schedule where such
lease may be granted pursuant to Clause 17.3.
17.7 Prior to the termination of this Agreement (whether at the natural expiry of
this Agreement or otherwise including where terminated in accordance with
Clause 17.1 or 17.2) failing which during the Restoration Period SSE shall, or
shall procure that the LLP shall, comply with the following restoration
obligations unless a lease is granted pursuant to Clause 17.3:
17.7.1 In the event that the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development ceases to be
operational on a permanent basis (which for the avoidance of doubt
shall mean two consecutive years of bona fide non-operation following
the Date of Commissioning), the LLP shall be obliged:
(a) to:
(i) reinstate fully and expeditiously all damage caused to the
Property by the construction of the Glasa Hydro Scheme
Development and make safe the buildings and erections and
apparatus on the Property erected on or for the purpose of the
Glasa Hydro Scheme Development to the state shown in the
Record of Condition unless required otherwise by the
Authorities; and
(ii) unless otherwise agreed in writing by KP, within one year of
notice being given to the LLP by KP and/or the Authorities (as
the case may be), ensure that (a) the reservoir has been made
and certified safe to the extent that the Reservoirs Act 1975 as
amended or re-enacted may require and (b) such reservoir and
the dam being rendered into a condition which is suitable and
to the reasonable satisfaction of all relevant Authorities having
regard to the assumption (if not a fact) that neither the dam
nor the reservoir will be subject to continuing maintenance
Page 13 ⇓
13
declaring for the avoidance of doubt (and notwithstanding the
provisions of Clause 17.7.1(b) hereof) that the dam will be
removed only in the event that either the relevant Authorities
or KP (with the consent of the relevant Authorities) require the
LLP to remove the dam; and further declaring that the LLP
shall carry out the necessary reinstatement works to the
reservoir and/or within one year of notice having been served
upon them by KP (or such other period as may be stipulated
by the Authorities), failing which KP shall be entitled to call
upon the Guarantee in order to meet the costs of any
outstanding restoration/removal works and to instruct and
execute such necessary works to the state shown in the Record
of Condition, the Guarantors being obliged to meet any
shortfall in the LLP’s reimbursement of KP for the costs
reasonably and necessarily incurred by KP in so doing; or
(b) unless otherwise requested by KP in writing, to remove the Glasa
Hydro Scheme Development (but consistent with the provisions
for the dam referred to in Clause 17.7.1(a) above, and not only to
make safe the intakes and underground tunnels all in accordance
with the Planning Permission, but which will also be adjusted,
removed and/or covered to permit water to flow down the
original water courses but also so that no structures are visible on
the surface) and to reinstate the Subjects including any Access
Roads as referred to in paragraph 1.2 of Part 5 of the Schedule and
any additional parts of the Property used by the LLP referred to in
paragraph 1.1 of Part 5 of the Schedule, and the Subjects shall be in
no worse condition then as reflected by the Record of Condition,
such restoration to be in accordance with the terms of the Planning
Permission and to the reasonable satisfaction of KP.
…
19. RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE
SUBJECTS
19.1 KP shall have the rights set out in Part 8 of the Schedule in addition to any
other rights set out in the Agreement.
19.2 SSE shall have the rights set out in this Agreement.
19.3 The LLP shall have the rights in respect of the Property and the Subjects set
out in Part 5 of the Schedule in addition to any other rights set out in this
Agreement.
19.4 KP warrants that immediately prior to the transfer of the Subjects to the LLP,
KP will have a valid and marketable title to the Subjects and immediately
Page 14 ⇓
14
prior to the grant of those of the Servitudes as are granted by it, it will have
valid title to grant those Servitudes.
20. GUARANTEE
20.1 SSE will, prior to the Commencement of Construction and by way of
provision for restoration costs for works referred to in Clause 17 hereof,
provide KP with a Guarantee in terms satisfactory to KP acting reasonably to
cover the estimated costs of the full cost of the decommissioning, removal
and reinstatement obligations of the LLP are set out within the Planning
Permission and maintain such sum (subject to any review as per Clause 20.3
hereof) throughout the duration of this Agreement including the Restoration
Period until fulfilment of the LLP’s restoration obligations hereunder but
subject always to the provisions of Clause 17.8.
…
24. ASSIGNATION
Without prejudice to Clause 15 no party shall be entitled without the prior written
consent of the other parties to this Agreement to assign or transfer either the benefit
or burden of this Agreement or any right and/or obligation under this Agreement
save for any assignation or transfer by SSE that is required as a result of statutory
obligations (in which case SSE shall notify KP of the same).
…
28. TREE FELLING
28.1 If SSE by written notice to KP requests that the trees growing upon any area
of ground covered by a Felling Licence be felled after the Commencement
Date and KP consent to such request, then KP (subject to any provisions
required by the Planning Permission and/or relevant Felling Licence) will
arrange a standing sale to achieve a clear fell of the said area in accordance
with the terms of the said felling licence and the LLP will pay to KP within
30 days of receipt by KP of written evidence confirming sale compensation at
the rate of £5.56 per tonne (Index Linked) for all timber harvested and sold
together with reimbursement of all necessary forestry work costs, declaring
that any such felling and harvesting will require to be carried out only
between the months of March and October in each year and the LLP shall be
obliged to pay such compensation whether or not the Glasa Hydro Scheme
Development proceeds.
28.2 Subject to the agreement of KP, such agreement not to be unreasonably
withheld or delayed, where the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development requires
the felling of any trees on the Subjects of the Property.
Page 15 ⇓
15
28.2.1 KP or the LLP shall carry out all tree felling in accordance with a
felling programme agreed in advance between KP and the LLP (both
acting reasonably) and in accordance with the UK Forestry Standard
as amended from time to time and the LLP will make payment as per
the Table of Tree Crop Compensation for the trees (but for the
avoidance of doubt any trees felled under Clause 28.1 shall not be
compensated for by reference to the Table of Tree Crop
Compensation), be it conifers and/or broadleaf trees (if any) removed
from pipelines, cables, the power house and Access Roads as well
reimbursement to KP of all necessary forestry work costs but
declaring that in the event that KP keep the timber arising from KP or
the LLP’s felling, then the amounts as calculated from the Table of
Tree Crop Compensation will be reduced by the value (if any) of the
timber felled as evidenced by the payment schedule (on a standing
sale basis) from the timber purchaser;
28.2.2 subject to the agreement of KP all timber felled by the LLP shall be
stacked at convenient locations to be agreement between the members
acting reasonably;
28.2.3 the timber felled as aforesaid shall belong to the owner thereof who
shall be entitled to dispose of the same and retain the full proceeds
thereof. No timber shall be sold or otherwise disposed of by the LLP.
28.3 In the event that the Subjects include areas of standing timber which are not
felled by KP or the LLP then (a) KP on behalf of the LLP shall have the right
at all times to manage such areas of standing timber including the right to
thin, fell and replant such areas as KP in consultation with the SSE (both
parties acting reasonably) shall agree and (b) the LLP in consultation with KP
shall be entitled at any time throughout the duration of this Agreement to fell
the same subject to the provisions of Clause 28.2.
28.4 KP will be responsible for clearing any associated wind blow that occurs due
to the removal of trees during construction and for a period of five years after
Commencement of Construction and LLP shall pay compensation to KP
accordingly on the basis of the Table of Tree Crop Compensation as per
Clause 28.2.1.
…
32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement together with any documents referred to in this Agreement and/or
any other documents entered into on or after the date of this Agreement which
specifically refer to this Agreement in either case between the Members or between
any of the Members and the LLP are party constitute the entire agreement between
the Members with respect to the subject matter thereof and expressly exclude any
Page 16 ⇓
16
warranty, condition or other undertaking implied at law or by custom and supersede
all previous agreements and understandings between the Members with respect
thereto and each of the Members acknowledges and confirm that it does not enter
into this Agreement in reliance on any representation, warranty or other undertaking
not fully reflected in the terms of this Agreement (or in one of such documents).
…
SCHEDULE
PART 5
USE OF THE SUBJECTS AND THE PROPERTY
1.1 The LLP shall have the right, and shall use the Property and the Subjects only
until the Expiry Date and, where applicable, during the Restoration Period:
1.1.1
to construct, operate, inspect, maintain, upgrade, renew, repair,
restore, remove and decommission and, subject to KP’s approval,
enlarge a dam, a reservoir, a hydro power station, intake sites, head
pond areas, and such other weirs dams, plant equipment and other
structures on the Subjects in connection with the Hydro Scheme
Development to be operated by the LLP declaring that any
enlargement, apart from any enlargement necessary as a consequence
of a change in statutory requirements due to changes in legislation
(which shall be deemed to be approved), shall be subject to the written
approval of KP having first been provided with a fully detailed
proposal and associated plans, such approval not to be unreasonably
withheld or delayed;
1.1.2 to construct, use inspect, maintain, repair and renew the Access
Roads;
1.1.3
to access to over and across the Subjects and the Property adjacent to
the Subjects for the purposes of site investigation and survey work,
construction, maintenance, operation, improvement, renewal, repair,
decommissioning, removal and restoration of the Hydro Scheme
Developments subject to the prior agreement of KP (acting reasonably
and without undue delay) as to the location of such accesses,
compounds, or areas that may be required from time to time. This
includes without limitation lay down areas in order to facilitate the
rights granted in 1.1.1 above but subject always to the KP having
approved, prior to commencement of construction, a plan showing
the indicative layout of the proposed Hydro Scheme Developments
including areas of temporary occupation required to facilitate
construction, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or
delayed but declaring for the avoidance of doubt that any minor
changes, being those which do not require a further application to be
made for Planning Permission or a variation to the existing consent,
Page 17 ⇓
17
shall be deemed to have been approved by KP. The right of access so
conferred is conditional upon the LLP making good any damage to
the reasonable satisfaction of KP and consistent with the information
contained within the Record of Condition;
…
1.2 Subject to Part 8 of this Schedule, the LLP shall have an exclusive right of
pedestrian and vehicular access via the Access Roads to and from the Subjects
and to neighbouring land adjoining the Property upon which the Hydro
Scheme Developments which are located and are to be constructed for the
purposes of construction, maintenance, decommissioning, removal and
restoration of the Hydro Scheme Developments until the Expiry Date and
during the Restoration Period and that via the Access Roads and to construct
new roads as shown indicatively in solid purple, solid pink and broken pink
on Plan A or by such other routes as shall be agreed between KP and the LLP
acting reasonably and which new roads shall be deemed to be Access Roads.
The LLP shall be obliged to ensure that all vehicular access to and across the
Subjects by it or on its behalf is in suitable vehicles so as to cause the least
practicable damage to the said roads and others and the Subjects and the
Property, including where appropriate low ground pressure vehicles. In the
event that damage is caused to the said roads and paths then the LLP shall
repair the damage within 21 days of the damage being notified to the LLP,
and in the event that the damage is not so repaired within the 21 day period
to allow the said roads and paths to be used by a vehicle appropriate for that
particular road or path then KP shall be entitled to repair the said road or
path and charge the LLP for the reasonably and properly incurred costs of
repairing same. In so far as within the control of the LLP, none of the roads or
footpaths constructed or reconstructed as part of the Hydro Scheme
Developments will constitute a public right of way other than any already
previously designated as such a right of way.
SCHEDULE
PART 7
LLP OBLIGATIONS
2.4 To pay any rates, developments tax or charges including any aggregates tax
assessed on the Hydro Scheme Developments due to its use on the Subjects.
2.5 To free, relieve, indemnify and hold harmless KP against all actions,
proceedings, damages, penalties, costs, charges, claims and demands
incurred to KP in consequence of any breach of the provisions of this
Agreement by the LLP or those for whom the LLP is responsible in law and
against all loss and damage arising as a result of the exercise by the LLP of
the rights conferred on it by this Agreement including (notwithstanding the
foregoing generally) from any damage that may be caused to fisheries and
Page 18 ⇓
18
the water environment as a direct result of the Glasa Hydro Scheme
Development.
2.6 Without prejudice to the foregoing indemnity, to maintain public liability
insurance cover to a sum of not less than Ten Million Pounds Sterling
(£10,000,000) in respect of each and every loss and to provide evidence of
such cover annually on the written request of KP or such greater sum to be
agreed by the parties (making reference to an expert if necessary as per
Clause 26) on the tenth anniversary of the Commencement Date and on each
subsequent tenth anniversary thereafter, and such sum to cover for the
avoidance of doubt the Restoration Period.
2.7 Not to object to any application for consent or permission for development on
the Property by KP which would not have any material effect on the
Development, and further not make any such objection without first
discussing the basis of any objection with KP.
2.8 To keep all equipment forming part of the Hydro Scheme Development in
good working order and the exterior of any structures built for the purpose of
the Hydro Scheme Development on the Subjects in good and tenantable
repair.
2.9 To display such warning or other notices as are required by statute but
subject thereto not to display any advertisements on the Subjects or elsewhere
on the Property without the prior written agreement of KP who shall not
withhold their consent unreasonably.
2.10 Subject to Clause 2.1 in Part 7 of the Schedule to this Agreement to comply
with the Planning Permission and any relevant consents and to use best
endeavours not to damage or disturb or pollute any existing drains,
waterways, fences or walls on the Subjects and for the Property, but in the
event that such damage is caused to remedy same as may be directed by the
relevant Authorities or by KP acting reasonably (if there is no relevant
Authority applicable in the circumstance), or if not possible to remedy to pay
reasonable and appropriate compensation to KP and such other third parties
as the case may be in lieu.
2.11 From the Commencement of Construction and in accordance with the Record
of Condition until at least the third anniversary of the Date of
Commissioning, and other than extraordinary damage caused by KP, to be
solely responsible for the repair, maintenance and where necessary renewal
of the Access Roads referred to in paragraph 1.2 or Part 5 of this Schedule and
having reinstated the same to the condition required by the provisions of
Clause 12.4, but not before 3 years from the Date of Commissioning to
contribute, according to user, to the cost of maintenance, repair, and when
necessary for the foregoing purpose, renewal of the same so as to preserve
them in that condition but declaring that the LLP shall, at their own sole
Page 19 ⇓
19
expense, repair as soon as reasonably practicable, any extraordinary damage
caused to the said roads by the LLP but declaring that the LLP shall carry out
adequate repairs, weather permitting, to allow access for normal estate
purposes at all times. The LLP shall be entitled to request that KP carry out
maintenance, repair, and when necessary for the foregoing purpose and
renewal of the Access Roads, and where reasonable KP shall carry out the
same, subject to the aforesaid provisions that costs shall be borne by the LLP.
…
2.15 The LLP shall repair and make good (or if it is not possible to repair or make
good then to adequately compensate for) any surface damage to ground
suffered as a result of the construction work or in exercise of any of the rights
granted under this Agreement.
PART 13
FORM OF NOTICE (COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION)
The Glasa LLP
(Registered in Scotland with registered number)
[Address]
To: The Kildermorie Partnership
[Address]
Dear Sirs
Commencement of Construction
We refer to the LLP Agreement amongst you, SSE Generation Limited and ourselves
dated ◦ 2010 (the LLP Agreement). Terms defined in the LLP Agreement shall have
the same meaning when used in this letter.
We hereby give you notice that we intend to initiate the Glasa Hydro Scheme
Development under the Planning Permission and to take first entry on to the Subjects
(excluding any operations relation to site investigations) on [date].
[Date] shall therefore be the Commencement of Construction for the purposes of the
LLP Agreement.”
Terms of the IAD Servitude
[12] The relevant provisions of the servitude granted by Mr Duncan in favour of the
Kildermorie Partnership are as follows:
“DEED OF SERVITUDE by
Page 20 ⇓
20
IAN ALEXANDER DUNCAN residing [address] (who and whose successors as
proprietors of the Benefited Property (after defined) are hereinafter referred to as the
‘Burdened Owner’)
in favour of
IAN ALEXANDER DUNCAN and Mrs CAROL HAMMOND DUNCAN, both
residing [address] the present Partners in the firm of Kildermorie Partnership (who
and whose successors as proprietors of the Burdened Property (after defined) and
hereinafter referred to as the ‘Benefitted Owner’)
1.
DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
1.1 Definitions
In this Deed:
‘Benefited property 1’ means ALL and WHOLE the subjects shown
delineated in red and crosshatched on Plan 1 annexed and signed as relative
hereto and being the subjects disponed by and shown on the plan annexed
and signed as relative to the Disposition by the Burdened Owner in favour of
the Benefitted Owner dated of even date herewith and registered or about to
be registered in the Land Register of Scotland (being the subjects to comprise
a Generating Scheme);
‘Benefited Property 2’ means ALL and WHOLE the subjects shown
delineated in red and coloured red on Plan 2 annexed and signed as relative
hereto and being the subjects disponed by and shown on the plan annexed
and signed as relative to the Disposition to be granted by the Benefited
Owner in favour of Glasa LLP and to be registered in the Land Register of
Scotland (being the subjects comprising the existing Hydro Scheme);
‘Benefited Property 3’ means ALL and WHOLE (1) the subjects shown
coloured in yellow, and (2) the subjects shown outlined in blue, on Plan 3
annexed and signed as relative hereto and being the subjects disponed by and
shown on the plan annexed and signed as relative to the Disposition by the
Benefited Owner in favour of Glasa LLP dated of even date herewith and
registered or about to be registered in the Land Register of Scotland (being
the subjects comprising the Dam and Reservoir);
‘Burdened Property’ means All and Whole that area or piece of ground
extending to Seven Hundred and Forty Eight hectares and Forty Two decimal
or one-hundredth parts of a hectare (748.42ha) or thereby in the said Parish
and County and being the subjects registered in the Land Register of Scotland
under Title Number ROS9481;
…
Page 21 ⇓
21
‘Servitude Area 1’ means the ALL and WHOLE (i) the solum of the roadway
shown coloured blue on Plan 4 annexed and signed as relative hereto,
(together with such adjoining land extending up to twenty metres on either
side of the roadway as is required by the Benefited Owner), and (ii) the solum
of that area of ground shown coloured purple on the said Plan 4 (together
with such adjoining land extending up to twenty metres on either side of the
roadway as is required by the Benefited Owner).
‘Servitude Area 2’ means ALL and WHOLE those areas shown in dotted blue
lines on Plan 5 annexed and signed as relative hereto;
‘Servitude Conditions’ means the conditions under which the Servitude
Rights are to be exercised set out in Part 2 of the Schedule; and
‘Servitude Rights’ means the servitude rights set out in Part 1 of the
Schedule.
…
GRANT OF SERVITUDE
IN CONSIDERATION of certain goods and onerous causes but without any
consideration being paid to the Burdened Owner by the Benefited Owner, the
Burdened Owner grants the Servitude Rights but subject always to the
Servitude Conditions.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF SERVITUDE
The Servitude Rights granted in the Schedule of this deed will be exercisable
with effect from 21 June 2010 notwithstanding the dates of this Deed. The
Servitude Rights granted in Schedule Part 2 will be exercisable from the date
of commissioning of the existing Hydro Scheme notwithstanding the dates of
this Deed.
…
Part 1
The Servitude Rights granted in favour of Benefited Property 1. Benefited
Property 2 and Benefited Property 3
The following servitude rights are imposed on the Burdened Property in favour of
Benefited Property 1, Benefited Property 2 and Benefited Property 3:
1.
A servitude right of vehicular (including heavy vehicles) and pedestrian
access and egress at all times over and across Servitude Area 1 for the
Page 22 ⇓
22
purpose of laying, constructing, inspecting, repairing, maintaining, renewing,
replacing and widening the road over Servitude Area 1 to such a standard as
is required by the Benefited Owner to successfully operate a generating
scheme at the Benefited Property 1, an existing hydro scheme at the Benefited
Property 2 and a new hydro scheme at the Benefited Property 3 but provided
always the Benefitted Owner shall not be entitled to use or encroach upon
land outwith Servitude Area 1 other than the adjoining land extending to up
to twenty metres on either side of the roadway as hereinbefore referred to.
2.
A servitude right of vehicular (including heavy vehicles and plant and
equipment) and pedestrian access and egress at all times for all purposes over
and across Servitude Area 1 (as upgraded in terms of Servitude Right 1
above) to the Benefited Property 1, the Benefited Property 2 and the Benefited
Property 3.
3.
A servitude right to widen the roads and verges and the right to upgrade the
drainage ditches along Servitude Area 1.
4.
A servitude right of vehicular (including heavy vehicles and plant and
equipment) and pedestrian access and egress at all times over and across the
Burdened Property to erect and install a bridge over the Allt a Chlaiginn burn
and a section of new road between the points A and B the route of said new
road to be agreed between the parties (both acting reasonably) and thereafter
a servitude right of vehicular (including heavy vehicles and plant and
equipment) and pedestrian access and egress at all times over and across the
said bridge and new road for all purposes.
5.
A servitude right to lay, construct, inspect, repair, maintain, renew and
replace underground and overground water pipelines along Servitude
Area 3, together with a servitude right of access, at all times, thereto.
Part 2
The Servitude Conditions
The Servitude Rights created by this Deed are subject to the following Servitude
Conditions:
1. The Benefited Owner will:
1.1 make good on demand all damage caused to the Burdened Property and / or
the Servitude Area 1, by reason of the exercise of the Servitude Rights by the
Benefited Owner or their tenants, agents, employees, workmen and others
authorised by them from time to time, to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Burdened Owner;
1.2 use their best endeavours to ensure that the Servitude Rights are exercised so
as to cause the minimum disturbance, nuisance or annoyance as is reasonably
Page 23 ⇓
23
practicable to the Burdened Owner and their tenants or occupiers, and all
other adjoining or neighbouring proprietors, tenants or occupiers, and
1.3 indemnify the Burdened Owner in respect of all claims, demands, expenses,
liabilities, actions or others arising in consequence of the exercise of the
Servitude Rights by the Benefited Owner.
2. The Benefited Owner will at all times maintain the road in good repair and
condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Burdened Owner.
3. The Benefited Owner will pay to the Burdened Owner on demand from time
to time a share, apportioned on the basis of use, of the costs properly and
reasonably incurred by the Burdened Owner in repairing, maintaining,
repairing, renewing and replacing the Servitude Area 1 other than during the
first three years from the date of entry hereunder during which period the
Benefited Owner will meet the whole costs of maintaining, repairing and
renewing Servitude Area 1. If the Benefited Owner fails to pay in full any
such sum so demanded within twenty one days of the date of demand
interest at Four per cent per annum above the base lending rate from time to
time of the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc will run thereon on any outstanding
balance from the date of demand until payment in full by the Benefited
Owner.
4. In the event of the Benefited Owner requiring the removal of fences in order
to exercise any of the Servitude Rights such fences will be replaced by the
Benefited Owner at their sole expense along such new fence line as agreed
with the Burdened Owner, both parties acting reasonably.
5. If the Benefited Owner require to fell trees for the purposes of carrying out
the construction of the new bridge and road the Benefited Owner shall by
written notice to the Burdened Owner request that the trees growing upon
Servitude Area 1 covered by a Felling Licence be felled after the date of
commencement of the servitude and the Burdened Owner consents, such
consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed, to such request, then the
Burdened Owner will arrange a standing sale to achieve a clear fell of the said
area in accordance with the terms of the said felling licence and the Benefited
Owner will pay to the Burdened Owner compensation at the rate of £5.56 per
tonne Index Linked for all timber harvested and sold together with
reimbursement of all necessary forestry work costs within 30 days of receipt
by the Benefited Owner of written evidence confirming such sale and costs,
declaring that any such felling and harvesting will require to be carried out
only between the months of March and October in each year.
The Burdened Owner and the Benefited Owner shall carry out all tree felling
in accordance with a felling programme agreed in advance between the
Burdened Owner and the Benefited Owner (acting reasonably) and in
accordance with the UK Forestry Standard as amended from time to time and
Page 24 ⇓
24
the Benefited Owner will make payment according to the Table of Crop
Compensation per Schedule 4 for the trees but for the avoidance of doubt any
trees felled per the paragraph above shall not be compensated for by
reference to the Table of Crop Compensation be it conifers and/or broadleaf
trees (if any) removed from pipelines, cables, the power house and Access
Routes as well reimbursement to the Burdened Owner of all necessary
forestry work costs but declaring that in the event that the Burdened Owner
keep the timber arising from the Benefited Owner’ felling, then the amounts
as calculated from the Schedule will be reduced by the value (if any) of the
timber felled as evidenced by the payment schedule (on a standing sale basis)
from the timber purchaser; and in the event of any difference of opinion on
the terms of this clause it shall be interpreted in accordance with the Glasa
LLP Limited Partnership Agreement dated 20 and 21 June 2010.”
Terms of the KP Servitude
[13] The KP Servitude defined the Kildermorie Partnership as the “Burdened Owner”
and Glasa LLP as the “Benefited Owner” and included the following provisions:
“DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
1.1 Definitions
In this Deed:
‘Benefited Property 1’ means ALL and WHOLE the subjects shown
delineated in red and crosshatched on Plan 1 annexed and signed as relative
hereto and being the subjects disponed by and shown on the plan annexed
and signed as relative to the Disposition by the Burdened Owner in favour of
the Benefitted Owner dated of even date herewith and registered or about to
be registered in the Land Register of Scotland (being the subjects to comprise
a Generating Scheme);
‘Benefited Property 2’ means ALL and WHOLE the subjects shown
delineated in red and coloured red on Plan 2 annexed and signed as relative
hereto and being the subjects disponed by and shown on the plan annexed
and signed as relative to the Disposition to be granted by the Benefited
Owner in favour of Glasa LLP and to be registered in the Land Register of
Scotland (being the subjects comprising the existing Hydro Scheme);
‘Benefited Property 3’ means ALL and WHOLE (1) the subjects shown
coloured in yellow, and (2) the subjects shown outlined in blue, on Plan 3
annexed and signed as relative hereto and being the subjects disponed by and
shown on the plan annexed and signed as relative to the Disposition by the
Page 25 ⇓
25
Benefited Owner in favour of Glasa LLP dated of even date herewith and
registered or about to be registered in the Land Register of Scotland (being
the subjects comprising the Dam and Reservoir);
‘Burdened Property’ means All and Whole that area or piece of ground
extending to Seven Hundred and Forty Eight hectares and Forty Two decimal
or one-hundredth parts of a hectare (748.42ha) or thereby in the said Parish
and County and being the subjects registered in the Land Register of Scotland
under Title Number ROS9481;
‘Glasa LLP’ means Glasa Limited Liability Partnership having its Registered
Office at Inveralmond House, Two Hundred Dunkeld Road, Perth
‘Index Linked’ means in relation to an amount specified in this Lease, that
amount multiplied by RPIn/RPIa where RPIn is the RPI for the month
preceding the requirement for indexation and RPIa is the RPI for
February 2008. For the sake of clarity any indexation will be on an upwards
only basis. In the event that the said index ceases to be published, there shall
be substituted reference to such alternative index as shall be agreed between
the Landlords and the Tenants, acting reasonably.
‘Schedule’ means the schedule annexed to this Deed of Servitude;
‘Servitude Area 1’ means the ALL and WHOLE (i) the solum of the roadway
shown coloured blue on Plan 4 annexed and signed as relative hereto,
(together with such adjoining land extending up to twenty metres on either
side of the roadway as is required by the Benefited Owner), and (ii) the solum
of that area of ground shown coloured purple on the said Plan 4 (together
with such adjoining land extending up to twenty metres on either side of the
roadway as is required by the Benefited Owner).
‘Servitude Area 2’ means ALL and WHOLE those areas shown in dotted blue
lines on Plan 5 annexed and signed as relative hereto;
‘Servitude Conditions’ means the conditions under which the Servitude
Rights are to be exercised set out in Part 2 of the Schedule; and
‘Servitude Rights’ means the servitude rights set out in Part 1 of the
Schedule.
…
Part 1
The Servitude Rights granted in favour of Benefited Property 1. Benefited
Property 2 and Benefited Property 3
The following servitude rights are imposed on the Burdened Property in favour of
Benefited Property 1, Benefited Property 2 and Benefited Property 3:
Page 26 ⇓
26
1.
A servitude right of vehicular (including heavy vehicles) and pedestrian
access and egress at all times over and across Servitude Area 1 for the
purpose of laying, constructing, inspecting, repairing, maintaining, renewing,
replacing and widening the road over Servitude Area 1 to such a standard as
is required by the Benefited Owner to successfully operate a generating
scheme at the Benefited Property 1, an existing hydro scheme at the Benefited
Property 2 and a new hydro scheme at the Benefited Property 3 but provided
always the Benefited Owner shall not be entitled to use or encroach upon
land outwith Servitude Area 1 other than the adjoining land extending to up
to twenty metres on either side of the roadway as hereinbefore referred to.
2. A servitude right of vehicular (including heavy vehicles and plant and
equipment) and pedestrian access and egress at all times for all purposes over
and across Servitude Area 1 (as upgraded in terms of Servitude Right 1
above) to the Benefited Property 1, the Benefited Property 2 and the Benefited
Property 3.
3. A servitude right to widen the roads and verges and the right to upgrade the
drainage ditches along Servitude Area 1.
4.
A servitude right of vehicular (including heavy vehicles and plant and
equipment) and pedestrian access and egress at all times over and across the
Burdened Property to erect and install a bridge over the Allt a Chlaiginn burn
and a section of new road between the points A and B the route of said new
road to be agreed between the parties (both acting reasonably) and thereafter
a servitude right of vehicular (including heavy vehicles and plant and
equipment) and pedestrian access and egress at all times over and across the
said bridge and new road for all purposes.
5.
A servitude right to lay, construct, inspect, repair, maintain, renew and
replace underground and overground water pipelines along Servitude
Area 3, together with a servitude right of access, at all times, thereto.
Part 2
The Servitude Conditions
The Servitude Rights created by this Deed are subject to the following Servitude
Conditions:
1. The Benefited Owner will:
1.1. make good on demand all damage caused to the Burdened Property and / or
the Servitude Area 1, by reason of the exercise of the Servitude Rights by the
Benefited Owner or their tenants, agents, employees, workmen and others
Page 27 ⇓
27
authorised by them from time to time, to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Burdened Owner;
1.2 use their best endeavours to ensure that the Servitude Rights are exercised so
as to cause the minimum disturbance, nuisance or annoyance as is reasonably
practicable to the Burdened Owner and their tenants or occupiers, and all
other adjoining or neighbouring proprietors, tenants or occupiers, and
1.3 indemnify the Burdened Owner in respect of all claims, demands, expenses,
liabilities, actions or others arising in consequence of the exercise of the
Servitude Rights by the Benefited Owner.
2.
The Benefited Owner will at all times maintain the road in good repair and
condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Burdened Owner.
3.
The Benefited Owner will pay to the Burdened Owner on demand from time
to time a share, apportioned on the basis of use, of the costs properly and
reasonably incurred by the Burdened Owner in repairing, maintaining,
repairing, renewing and replacing the Servitude Area 1 other than during the
first three years from the date of entry hereunder during which period the
Benefited Owner will meet the whole costs of maintaining, repairing and
renewing Servitude Area 1. If the Benefited Owner fails to pay in full any
such sum so demanded within twenty one days of the date of demand
interest at Four per cent per annum above the base lending rate from time to
time of the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc will run thereon on any outstanding
balance from the date of demand until payment in full by the Benefited
Owner.
4.
In the event of the Benefited Owner requiring the removal of fences in order
to exercise any of the Servitude Rights such fences will be replaced by the
Benefited Owner at their sole expense along such new fence line as agreed
with the Burdened Owner, both parties acting reasonably.
5.
If the Benefited Owner require to fell trees for the purposes of carrying out
the construction of the new bridge and road the Benefited Owner shall by
written notice to the Burdened Owner request that the trees growing upon
Servitude Area 1 covered by a Felling Licence be felled after the date of
commencement of the servitude and the Burdened Owner consents, such
consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed, to such request, then the
Burdened Owner will arrange a standing sale to achieve a clear fell of the said
area in accordance with the terms of the said felling licence and the Benefited
Owner will pay to the Burdened Owner compensation at the rate of £5.56 per
tonne Index Linked for all timber harvested and sold together with
reimbursement of all necessary forestry work costs within 30 days of receipt
by the Benefited Owner of written evidence confirming such sale and costs,
declaring that any such felling and harvesting will require to be carried out
only between the months of March and October in each year.
Page 28 ⇓
28
The Burdened Owner and the Benefited Owner shall carry out all tree felling
in accordance with a felling programme agreed in advance between the
Burdened Owner and the Benefited Owner (acting reasonably) and in
accordance with the UK Forestry Standard as amended from time to time and
the Benefited Owner will make payment according to the Table of Crop
Compensation per Schedule 4 for the trees but for the avoidance of doubt any
trees felled per the paragraph above shall not be compensated for by
reference to the Table of Crop Compensation be it conifers and/or broadleaf
trees (if any) removed from pipelines, cables, the power house and Access
Routes as well reimbursement to the Burdened Owner of all necessary
forestry work costs but declaring that in the event that the Burdened Owner
keep the timber arising from the Benefited Owner’ felling, then the amounts
as calculated from the Schedule will be reduced by the value (if any) of the
timber felled as evidenced by the payment schedule (on a standing sale basis)
from the timber purchaser; and in the event of any difference of opinion on
the terms of this clause it shall be interpreted in accordance with the Glasa
LLP Limited Partnership Agreement dated 20 and 21 June 2010.”
Question 1: Is “Commencement of Construction” having taken place, as that phrase is
defined in clause 1.1 of the LLP Contract, a requirement for the Pursuers to be able to
found upon the undernoted obligations in the LLP Contract?
a) Clause 17.7
b) Clause 28.4
c) Schedule Part 5, paragraph 1.2
d) Schedule part 7, paragraphs 2.5, 2.10 and 2.15 (as read with clause 12)
Pursuers’ submissions
[14] Counsel for the pursuers submitted that the principles applicable to the
interpretation of contracts were well known and summarised in Arnold v Britton [2015] AC
1619, Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101, Aberdeen City Council v Stuart
2900. He submitted that it was common ground that the “Commencement of Construction”
had not taken place. However, the “Commencement of Construction” was not a
prerequisite to the pursuers succeeding in its claim. “Commencement of Construction” was
a defined term in clause 1.1 of the LLP Agreement. It was used in certain clauses (eg 12.7,
Page 29 ⇓
29
12.4, 22, paragraph 2.11 of part 7 of the schedule) but not on the clauses relating to these
obligations: The clear inference was that parties did not intend it to have any significance to
these obligations. The terms of clause 17.7 envisaged its application before, as well as after
the Commencement of Construction. Clause 28.4 must be considered in the context of
clauses 28.1, 28.2 and 28.3 which include the period prior to Commencement of
Construction. There was no provision anywhere in the LLP Agreement which postponed
the rights in schedule part 5, paragraph 1.2 until after the commencement of construction.
Schedule part 7, paragraphs 2.5, 2.10 and 2.15 applied “throughout the duration of this
agreement”.
Defenders’ submissions
[15] Counsel for the defenders submitted that the answer to this question was yes. The
obligations listed in this question had no application to this case because each of them only
applied after “Commencement of Construction”, which did not take place.
[16] He referred to Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank Co Ltd, Arnold v Britton, Wood v Capita
Insurance Services Ltd [2017] AC 1173 and in particular submitted that effect must be given to
clear and unambiguous language (Rainy Sky at para [23]: Arnold at paras [17] and [18]).
[17] The parties had agreed a very specific method of documenting the date of
“Commencement of Construction”. Clause 1.1 envisaged that operations relating to site
investigations would be carried out without any “Commencement of Construction”.
[18] The Kildermorie Partnership had termination rights under clause 12.7, exercisable if
there were “Commencement of Construction”. The parties were required to adopt the
Record of Condition prior to Commencement of Construction (clause 12.4). Prior to
Commencement of Construction, SSE was required to provide a guarantee (clause 20) [22.3].
Page 30 ⇓
30
[19] He further submitted that clause 17.7 had no application if “Commencement of
Construction” had not taken place. In support of this argument, he referred to the proviso
in clause 17.7.1, the use of the word “instruction” in clause 17.7.1(a)(i), the requirement in
clause 17.7.1(b) for reinstatement to the standard in the Record of Condition, and 17.7.2
which envisaged a guarantee in place prior to its operation.
[20] He submitted that clause 28.4 had no application unless there had been
“Commencement of Construction”. He referred to the wording of the clause, and the
distinction made between “construction” and “site investigations in the agreement”
eg clause 31.1.4.
[21] He further submitted that paragraph 1.2 of schedule part 5 similarly had no
application unless there had been “Commencement of Construction” as it refers to the
Hydro Scheme Development which was a defined term with that effect.
[22] He further submitted that paragraph 2.5 of schedule part 7 related to damage as a
result of the “Hydro Scheme Developments” which only arises after “Commencement of
Construction”.
Discussion and decision
[23] In answering this question, I shall consider the general structure of the Agreement
and then the particular clauses referred to in the question.
General structure of the Agreement
[24] The Agreement discloses that the project was to proceed in accordance with certain
milestones.
Page 31 ⇓
31
[25] The first milestone was the Commencement Date, ie the date of final execution of the
Agreement (clause 2.1, definition 1.1). Glasa LLP would be set up and the necessary land
would be disponed to it by KP by the dispositions referred to above. Planning permission
would then be obtained (see definition of Planning Permission cl 1.1).
[26] Another milestone was to be the “Commencement of Construction”, which was
defined as:
“the date on with the LLP notifies KP in writing, giving not less than 7 days’ notice,
using the style of notice set out in Part 13 of the Schedule, that it intends to initiate
the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development under the Planning Permission and to take
first entry onto the Subjects, excluding any operations relating to site investigations”
[27] Another milestone was the “Date of Commissioning”, which was defined as the date
on which electricity is first commercially exported from the project.
[28] However the milestone of “Commencement of Construction” was never reached. In
terms of cl 17.1 SSE had an option to terminate the Agreement and wind up the LLP, either
prior to or at any time following the Commencement of Construction. It exercised that
option in 2014, prior to the Commencement of Construction.
a) Clause 17.7
[29] For the reasons set out in my answer to question 4(a), the answer to question 1(a) is
no.
b) Clause 28.4
[30] Clause 28.4 uses the word “construction”. In my opinion this means something other
than is meant by “Commencement of Construction” The clause provides that KP is
responsible for windblow “during construction and for a period of five years after
Page 32 ⇓
32
Commencement of Construction”. That envisages that “construction” can precede
“Commencement of Construction”: otherwise the words “during construction and” would
be superfluous and have no meaning. The clause should be construed in a way that gives
effect to these words. I give further consideration to the meaning of “construction” in
paragraphs [39] - {40] below.
[31] The answer to this question is no.
c) Schedule Part 5, paragraph 1.2
[32] Paragraph 1.2 gives rights of access over the Access Roads “for the purposes of
construction… of the Hydro Scheme Developments”. There is no express restriction of the
exercise of that access to after the Commencement of Construction. The definition of
“Hydro Scheme Developments” includes Glasa Hydro Scheme Development which is
defined as the “construction … of a hydro-electric generating scheme”. There is no express
restriction in that definition restricting “construction” to after the Commencement of
Construction. For the reasons set out in paragraph [40] below, “construction” can take place
prior to “Commencement of Construction”.
[33] The answer to this question is no.
d) Schedule part 7, paragraphs 2.5, 2.10 and 2.15 (as read with clause 12)
[34] Some of the paragraphs in Part 7 are expressly time limited to take effect only after
“Commencement of Construction”. For example paragraph 2.11 begins “From the
Commencement of Construction”. Paragraphs 2.5, 2.10 and 2.15 have no such express
limitation. In my opinion the scheme of part 7 is that the obligations contained within it take
Page 33 ⇓
33
effect from the execution of the Agreement unless expressly stated to take effect from the
Commencement of Construction.
[35] The answer to this question is no.
Question 2: Insofar as those obligations are dependent upon construction having taken
place (even if “Commencement of Construction” has not taken place), are the Pursuers’
averments sufficient to set up a relevant case that there has been “construction” within
the meaning of the LLP Contract?
Pursuers’ submissions
[36] In relation to the extent to which the obligations are dependent upon construction
having taken place, counsel for the pursuers submitted that paragraphs 2.5 and 2.10 of
schedule part 7 make no reference to construction. The occurrence of “construction” is not a
necessary prerequisite to the application of paragraph 2.15 of schedule part 7. The repair
obligation in paragraph 1.2 of schedule part 5 was not dependent upon construction having
taken place. The reference in clause 28.4 to “the removal of trees during construction” does
not limit the application of the clause, but makes clear that parties used the word
“construction” to signify a broad range of activities after execution of the LLP Agreement.
Clause 17.7.1(a)(i) depends in part on “construction” having taken place as it requires
reinstatement of damage. Clause 17.7.1(b) does not depend on construction having taken
place.
[37] With reference to the word “construction” (that is with a small “c”), counsel
submitted that the LLP Agreement did not define “construction” but did use it in a broad
sense to signify activities taking place prior to the Commencement of Construction
(eg clause 1.1, clause 28).
Page 34 ⇓
34
Defender’s submissions
[38] Counsel for the defender submitted that the answer to this question was no. The
LLP Agreement distinguished “construction” from “site investigations”. The pursuers did
not aver when “construction” started or why what happened on the site went beyond “site
investigations”.
Discussion and decision
[39] The word “construction” is not a defined term. It must bear its ordinary meaning. It
includes physical activities and works which are for the purpose of building the scheme.
[40] The pursuers aver:
“Initial works were carried out over the period 2010 to 2013. These included
carrying out environmental impact assessments, survey and site investigation work
and the drilling of cores as part of the foundations of the dam” (art 3).
They go on to make averments about the transport round the estate of drilling rigs
excavators and Halfingers. They aver that “the works done towards the construction of the
Glasa Scheme” required the felling of trees. They specify that trees were felled to (1) create
an access road to an intake to allow SSE to do preparatory work relating to the intake,
(2) clear a pipeline route to allow SSE to survey and mark out the route of the pipeline,
(3) clear the proposed turbine house to allow SSE to survey the site and (4) clear the bypass
track route so that large vehicles brought on to the Estate could access without inflicting
further damage to certain roads. They aver that representatives of SSE “wanted the trees
felled so that construction work could be carried out on the programme”. In my opinion
these averments are habile to show that “construction”, in the ordinary meaning of the
word, took place prior to the Commencement of Construction. The answer to this question
is yes.
Page 35 ⇓
35
Question 3: Assuming Mr Duncan’s averments to be true, do any of the following
provisions of the LLP Contract confer a ius quaesitum tertio on Mr Duncan and does
Mr Duncan relevantly aver that any such ius quaesitum tertio right was created by
delivery or otherwise?
a) Clause 12.3 in conjunction with paragraphs 2.5, 2.10, 2.15 and 2.16 of Part 7
of the Schedule;
b) Clause 19.3 in conjunction with paragraph 1.2 of Part 5 of the Schedule;
c) Clause 17.7;
d) Clauses 28.2.1 and 28.4
Pursuers’ submissions
[41] Counsel for the pursuers submitted that although the LLP Agreement did not
express or confer rights upon Mr Duncan as an individual, it did confer various rights on
Glasa LLP which were exercisable over land Mr Duncan owned (clause 19.3; schedule
part 5; clause 1.1, definition of “access roads” and “Property”) and imposed obligations on
Glasa LLP and SSE which related to that land (clause 2.3 and schedule part 7). Further, the
LLP Agreement imposed obligations on SSE and Glasa LLP to remedy damage caused to the
part of the estate owned by Mr Duncan, or through the exercise of rights over land owned
by him (eg schedule part 7, paragraphs 2.5, 2.10 and 2.15; schedule paragraph 5,
paragraph 1.2; clause 17.7). It was plain from these provisions that the commercial
intention of the parties was for loss suffered by the estate to be remediated at the cost of SSE,
whether that damage was suffered on the part of the estate owned by the Kildermorie
Partnership or on the part of it owned by Mr Duncan. To exclude claims by Mr Duncan in
relation to the part of the estate he owned would defeat that purpose and the express terms
of the LLP Agreement. To prevent that outcome it was necessary to construe the LLP
Agreement as conferring a ius quaesitum tertio on Mr Duncan to enforce the remediation
obligations in relation to the estate land he owned and the loss he had suffered. A ius
Page 36 ⇓
36
quaesitum tertio can arise without delivery if there is an inference that the right can no longer
be revoked (Carmichael v Carmichael’s Executrix 1920 SC (HL) 195), and this was the case here.
Mr Duncan was a party to the LLP Agreement in his capacity as a partner of the Kildermorie
Partnership and was therefore aware of its terms. Further Mr Duncan had granted the
dispositions of KP land and servitude of his own land in fulfilment of the LLP Agreement.
The IAD Servitude made exclusive reference to the LLP contract and so in his personal
capacity he had been made aware of its terms (schedule part 2, paragraph 5). Further the
LLP Agreement gave Glasa LLP and SSE rights over land owned by Mr Duncan
(eg Schedule part 5 and definitions of “Property” and “Access Roads” in clause 1.1). The
obligations undertaken to remediate Mr Duncan’s land were a clear quid pro quo for
Mr Duncan having made these contributions to the project and were clear evidence that the
rights were intended to be irrevocable, which was sufficient for the ius quaesitum tertio.
Defender’s submissions
[42] Counsel for the defender submitted that the answer to this question was no.
He submitted that the contract expressly excluded the possibility of an implied enforcement
right by the entire agreement clause (clause 32). There were no averments that Mr Duncan
was identified in the agreement, and this was necessary in order for him to have ius
quaesitum tertio rights (McBride, para 10.17; Welsh & Forbes v Johnston (1906) 13 SLT 805
at 8.07). Clause 15.7 made clear that the reason why the Kildermorie Partnership was a
party was because it had an interest in the whole estate as property manager. The LLP
Agreement made commercial sense without the implication of ius quaesitum tertio rights.
Such rights should not be implied. It was a detailed agreement arrived at with solicitors’
advice Mr Duncan signed the contract on behalf of the Kildermorie Partnership, and if he
Page 37 ⇓
37
had rights under the contract it is to be expected that these would have been expressly
included and he would also have signed as an individual. Mr Duncan in a personal capacity
was expressly excluded by definitions in the contract. Mr Duncan is not required to
participate in the preparation of the Record of Conditions. Mr Duncan is not the only
possible beneficiary as the Kildermorie Partnership may also be a beneficiary: in these
circumstances it is not easy to infer ius quaesitum tertio rights (Scott Lithgow Ltd v GEC
Electrical Projects Ltd 1989 SE 412 (OH), which was consistent with the high test to be
imposed for implied contractual rights (Marks & Spencer Plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services
Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd [2015] AC 742).
[43] Counsel further submitted that the wording of the specific provision founded upon
by Mr Duncan excludes any suggestion of ius quaesitum tertio rights. He referred to
paragraph 1.2 of part 5 of the schedule (which was enforceable by the Kildermorie
Partnership, not Mr Duncan), clause 28 which was clearly for the benefit of the Kildermorie
Partnership), clause 12.3 and paragraphs 2.5, 2.10, 2.15 and 2.16 of part 7 of the schedule
(expressly stated to be in favour of the Kildermorie Partnership) and clause 17.7 (which
creates rights on the part of the partnership).
[44] Counsel further submitted Mr Duncan had failed to demonstrate that the ius
quaesitum tertio rights were intended to be irrevocable (Carmichael v Carmichael’s Executrix
1920 SC (HL) 195, Granite City Estates Ltd [2018] CS0H 55 at para [31]. There was no
averment as to delivery. He had possession of the document because he had signed it as a
partner. He further submitted that absent express liability, there was no basis to infer an
intention that a damages claim would be available to Mr Duncan (Scott Lithgow Ltd v GEC
Electrical Projects Ltd 1989 SE 412 (OH) at page 438; Gloag on Contract (2nd edition p239).
Page 38 ⇓
38
Discussion and decision
[45] A ius quaesitum tertio arises where contracting parties intend to confer a right on a
party who is not party to the contract. The intention to benefit the third party will usually
be demonstrated by an express contractual term conferring the right. The third party must
be identified, either expressly or by implication. (Carmichael v Carmichael, McBryde Contract
para 10.17, Welsh v Forbes and Johnston.)
[46] In my opinion it is clear from the terms of the Agreement that the parties to the
Agreement, that is KP and SSE, did not intend to confer a ius quaesitum tertio on Mr Duncan
as an individual. The following factors demonstrate that KP and SSE had no such intention.
[47] Firstly, the intention of KP and SSE was that the Agreement would not be between
SSE and the owners of the various parts of the Kildermorie Estate, but would instead be
between SSE and KP as manager of the entire Estate. The Agreement was part of a complex
negotiation with SSE in which Mr Duncan took part both as an individual and as a partner
in KP. The negotiations covered the entire Kildermorie Estate, parts of which were owned
by KP and parts of which were owned by Mr Duncan personally or jointly with his wife. As
a result of these negotiations, various legal documents were entered into. KP and SSE had
the benefit of legal advice, as did Mr Duncan in his personal capacity. The legal documents
were drafted by solicitors. Mr Duncan entered into the IAD Servitude in a personal
capacity. He entered into the KP Servitude and the Agreement in his capacity as partner of
and trustee for KP. Had Mr Duncan chosen to enter into the Agreement in a personal
capacity as the owner of part of the Kildermorie Estate, the Agreement could have been
enforced by him in his personal capacity. However, Mr Duncan chose not to do so. Instead,
KP entered into the Agreement as manager of the entire Kildermorie Estate, including the
parts owned by Mr Duncan. This was made explicit by clause 15.7, which states:
Page 39 ⇓
39
“KP hereby warrants that it is entering into the arrangements contemplated by this
Agreement in pursuance of its existing business of managing the wider Property”
[48] “Property” is defined as property at Kildermorie Estate (cl 1.1). Accordingly the
contractual structure is that the rights to enforce the Agreement against SSE are held by KP
as manager of the estate and not by the individual owners of part of the estate such as
Mr Duncan.
[49] Secondly, if there had been an intention to grant rights in favour of Mr Duncan
despite the fact that he was not a party to the Agreement, then the normal way for this to be
done would be for the Agreement to expressly grant rights in favour of Mr Duncan as an
individual. If the intention of the KP and SSE was to grant rights in favour of Mr Duncan
personally, then there is no reason why KP and SSE could not have expressly included these
rights in the Agreement. Inclusion of an express ius quaesitum tertio right in favour of
Mr Duncan would also have satisfied the legal requirement that the third party must be
identified, as Mr Duncan would have been named as the recipient of these rights. The lack
of such a normal provision is a strong indication that KP and SSE did not intend to grant
rights in favour of Mr Duncan.
[50] Thirdly, it cannot be the case that KP and SSE intended to imply rights in favour of
Mr Duncan into the Agreement. The Agreement expressly excludes any such implication.
Clause 32 states:
“This Agreement together with [certain other documents not relevant here]
constitute the entire agreement between the Members with respect to the subject
matter thereof and expressly exclude any warranty, condition or other undertaking
implied at law or at custom…”
[51] Accordingly, on a proper construction of the Agreement, KP and SSE did not intend
to grant a ius quaesitum tertio to Mr Duncan in his personal capacity and the answer to this
question is no.
Page 40 ⇓
40
Question 4: Can the Pursuers relevantly found upon the restoration obligations in
clause 17.7 of the LLP Contract given that:
a) the Date of Commissioning (as defined in clause 1.1) has not occurred?
b) no Record of Condition (as defined in clause 1.1 and referred to in
clause 12.4) has been produced?
Pursuer’s submissions
[52] Counsel for the pursuers submitted that the answer to this question was yes. The
opening words of clause 17.7 provided that the defender’s “restoration obligations” were to
apply in wide circumstances: it would significantly narrow these obligations if they were to
be made dependent on either the Date of Commissioning having occurred or a Record of
Condition having been up.
[53] He submitted that clause 17.7.1 imposed an obligation to remove the Glasa Hydro
Scheme Development and reinstate the property, the words in brackets applying only to one
particular context. The purpose of the clause read as a whole was to give the Kildermorie
Partnership the right to insist on SSE removing the development and remediating the land,
but only if the development and become redundant. “Glasa Hydro Scheme Development”
was widely defined to include the range of activities over a lifetime of the scheme, going far
beyond the words specified in the brackets. The words in brackets should be treated as
providing a definition for use in the circumstances of where the development has been
commissioned but is no longer in use. There was no obvious rationale why SSE’s obligation
to remove its development should be conditional upon the development having been
commissioned in terms of clause 1.1, definition of “Date of Commissioning”. That factor
had no rational connection to the remedial tasks. As between the parties, SSE brought
Page 41 ⇓
41
technical expertise and were to fund this scheme and it was therefore consistent with that to
construe SSE’s remedial obligation as applying in broad circumstances.
[54] He further submitted that it was common ground that no Record of Condition was
prepared. The “Record of Condition” was no more than an evidential record of the
condition of parts of the estate and its absence did not prevent clause 17.7.1 from being
applied. There was nothing in clause 17.7.1 to suggest that the preparation of a Record of
Condition was a condition suspensive. The obligation specifies the standard of repair and
can be enforced as long as the pursuers can prove the condition of the property before the
scheme. The record of condition was to be repaired at SSE’s cost and was for them to repair
and they should not be able to escape their remediation obligations by failing to do so.
There was no obligation on the parties to adopt the Record of Condition unless
Commencement of Construction occurred (clause 12.4, but clause 17.7 triggered the
restoration obligations even if Commencement of Construction had not occurred).
Defender’s submissions
[55] Counsel for the defender submitted that the answer was no.
[56] He submitted that clause 17.7.1 applied after Commencement of Construction, and in
any event applied after the Date of Commissioning. The clear wording of clause 17.7.1 was
that it had no application to this case. In any event, the absence of a Record of Condition
means that no content can be given to the obligations in clause 17.7.1.
Page 42 ⇓
42
Discussion and decision
a) the Date of Commissioning (as defined in clause 1.1) has not occurred?
[57] The structure of clause 17.7 of the LLP Agreement is that there is an introductory
paragraph numbered 17.7 which is in general terms and imposes specific restoration
obligations which are listed in 17.7.1, 17.7.2 and 17.73.
[58] Neither 17.7.2 nor 17.7.3 are applicable to the facts of the current cases so can be dealt
with briefly. Clause 17.7.2 applies to restoration where additional works are required to
comply with planning consent. That is not the scenario here. Clause 17.7.3 applies where
instead of the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development being removed and restoration taking
place, the Development is transferred to the LLP. Nor is that the scenario here.
[59] 17.7.1 provides for restoration obligations which apply
“In the event that the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development ceases to be operational on
a permanent basis (which for the avoidance of doubt shall mean two consecutive
years of bona fide non-operation following the Date of Commissioning).”
That event has not occurred. It was common ground between the parties that the “Date of
Commissioning” had not occurred. The Date of Commissioning is the date on which
electricity is first commercially exported from the Glasa Hydro Scheme Development
(clause 1.1 of LLP Agreement). So 17.7.1 appears to apply where the development has been
constructed and is operational but subsequently ceases to be operational for a period of two
years. That is not the scenario here. The scenario here is that SSE has exercised its right
under clause 17.1 to terminate the Agreement prior to the Date of Commissioning and
indeed prior to the Commencement of Construction.
[60] Taking clause 17.7.1 in isolation, the reinstatement obligation appears to be narrowly
drafted and appears to be applicable only after two years non-operation after the Date of
Commissioning. But that is not the end of the matter. The Agreement has to be read as a
Page 43 ⇓
43
whole and clause 17.7.1 must be read along with the termination provisions in 17.1.
Clause 17.1 gives SSE the option to terminate in two circumstances: prior to
Commencement of Construction and following Commencement of Construction. The
termination is not dependent on the Date of Commissioning having occurred. The
Agreement may be terminated under clause 17.1 before the Date of Commissioning, either
by being terminated before Commencement of Construction or by being terminated between
Commencement of Construction and the Date of Commissioning. Clause 17.1 specifically
provides for reinstatement upon termination in terms of clause 17.1. It concludes with the
following declaration:
“declaring that in the event that SSE exercises this option to terminate this
Agreement the LLP shall be obliged… to effect reinstatement in terms of 17.7”
That is a clear expression of intention that the reinstatement provisions of clause 17.7 apply
on termination under clause 17.1, notwithstanding that such termination may pre-date the
Date of Commissioning or Commencement of Construction. A further clear expression of
that intent can be found in clause 17.7 which introduces and governs clause 17.7.1 and
makes specific reference to termination under clause 17.1:
“Prior to the termination of this Agreement (whether at the natural expiry of this
Agreement or otherwise including where terminated in accordance with Clause 17.1
or 17.2) failing which during the Restoration Period SSE shall, or shall procure that
the LLP shall, comply with the following restoration obligations... unless a lease is
granted pursuant to clause 17.3”
“Restoration Period” is defined, in short, as the decommissioning period starting 85 years
from the date of execution of the Agreement. (clause 1.1)
[61] In my opinion the Agreement has to be read as a whole. The parties have provided
for early termination prior to the Date of Commissioning or Commencement of Construction
(clause 17.1). The parties have provided for reinstatement in the event of early termination
Page 44 ⇓
44
(Clause 17.1 declaration). The parties have provided that reinstatement in the event of early
termination will be in accordance with clause 17.7.1 (Clause 17.1 declaration, Clause 17.7
introductory paragraph). The clear intention of the parties was that there would be an
obligation to reinstate on early termination prior to the Date of Commissioning or
Commencement of Construction. The clear intention of the parties was that such
reinstatement would be in accordance with 17.7.1 (a) and (b). Clause 17.7.1 must be read
mutatis mutandis in order to give effect to that intention.
[62] The answer to question (a) is yes.
b) no Record of Condition (as defined in clause 1.1 and referred to in clause 12.4) has been
produced?
[63] The Record of Condition must be adopted prior to the Commencement of
Construction (clause 12.4). The parties are under no obligation to adopt it at any time earlier
than immediately prior to the Commencement of Construction. A Record of Condition will
be available if there is early termination under clause 17.1 after Commencement of
Construction. But it will not necessarily be available if the early termination is before
Commencement of Construction. Clause 17.7.1 makes express reference to the Record of
Condition. However, clause 17.7.1 must be read mutatis mutandis to give effect to the clear
intention that it applies on early termination. That intention would be frustrated if the
application of clause 17.7.1 in respect of early termination prior to Commencement of
Construction depended on the arbitrary factor of whether the parties happened to have
adopted a Record of Condition prior to the time when they were legally obliged to do so.
[64] Reading the Agreement as a whole, the answer to question (b) is yes. The Agreement
has been terminated prior to the time at which the parties were legally obliged to adopt a
Page 45 ⇓
45
Record of Condition. As there is no Record of Condition, the onus will be on KP to aver and
prove the condition of the Subjects and Access Roads prior to the works undertaken by
SSE/Glasa LLP.
Question 5: Are conditions 5 in Part 2 of the Schedule to the IAD Servitude and 7 of
Part 2 of the Schedule to the KP Servitude enforceable by Mr Duncan and KP respectively
against Glasa as praedial burdens? If not, do the Pursuers aver any other basis upon
which these burdens can be enforced against Glasa?
Pursuers’ submissions
[65] Counsel for the pursuers submitted that both servitude deeds referred to servitude
rights and conditions and were intended to be conventional servitude conditions (Tennant v
Napier Smith’s Trustees [1888] 15 R 671). The conditions which provide for tree felling apply
to tree felling carried out for the purpose of Glasa LLP servitude rights and were therefore
related to them and of praedial significance. The conditions do not infringe any of the
limitations which apply to servitude conditions and are enforceable as such (Cusine and
Paisley, Servitudes and Rights of Way paras 14-06 FF).
[66] Counsel further submitted that it was not, in any event, necessary for the servitude
conditions to qualify as praedial burdens. The KP Servitude is enforceable as a contract
between KP and Glasa (Reid, The Law of Property in Scotland, paragraph 392; cf Title
Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, section 61.) Similarly, although the IAD Servitude was not
granted directly by Mr Duncan to Glasa LLP, Glasa LLP was the only intended beneficiary
and there was no justification as between Mr Duncan and Glasa LLP to apply restrictive
rules of enforcement necessary to protect singular successors.
Page 46 ⇓
46
Defender’s submissions
[67] Counsel for the defenders submitted that the answer to these questions was no.
Counsel further submitted that the IAD Servitude was unenforceable against Glasa LLP as a
singular successor. In order to be a real condition, binding on singular successors the
condition must have a connection with the servitude and must be praedial (Cusine and
Paisley, Servitudes and Rights of Way para 13.09, 14.07 – 8) and the servitude condition was
neither of these. He submitted that a servitude of construction could not be created under
common law (Campbell’s Trustees v Glasgow Corporation Ltd (1902) 4F 752 at page 75 – 78).
The relevant conditions do not regulate the servitude of access but are a mechanism for
parties to enter a different contract concerning the price payable for felled timber. Further,
the conditions do not meet the praedial test. The conditions are for the benefit of the
burdened property owner not the property. A praedial servitude cannot require the
payment of an indefinite sum unconnected with the essence of the servitude (Corporation of
Tailors of Aberdeen v Coutts (1840) 1 Robb 296 (HL) at page 340 and 323; David Watson
Property Management v Woolwich Equitable Building Society 1992 SLD 430 (HL) at p 434K).
Discussion and decision
[68] I shall consider each servitude separately.
IAD servitude
[69] This deed of servitude was granted by Mr Duncan in favour of KP. It sets out
various servitudes in Part 1 of the Schedule which are subject to various servitude
conditions set out in Part 2 of the Schedule. However, Mr Duncan does not seek to enforce a
Page 47 ⇓
47
servitude condition against KP. Instead he seeks to enforce it against KP’s singular
successor, Glasa LLP. He does so in his action against Glasa LLP (CA137/18).
[70] To be enforceable against a singular successor, a servitude condition must be
praedial. The test for whether a servitude condition is praedial is two-fold, and is
conveniently set out by Cusine and Paisley in Servitudes and Rights of Way at paragraph 14.08
as follows:
“Because it is connected with the underlying servitude, the servitude condition must
have a praedial nature. This rule also has two aspects. First, a servitude condition
must not impose a personal obligation upon the dominant proprietor which is
unrelated to the exercise of the servitude. Secondly, the servitude condition must
confer a benefit on the servient tenement and not just the then proprietor”
[71] Servitude condition 5 consists of two paragraphs. The first paragraph relates to the
felling of trees “for the purposes of carrying out the construction of the new bridge and
road”. The Deed of Servitude does not contain a servitude of construction of a new bridge
and road. However it does contain a servitude of access to allow construction of a road
(servitude in para 1 of Part 4 of the Schedule) and a servitude of access for the erection of a
bridge and new road (servitude in para 4). The servitude rights of access merely facilitate
the construction by allowing the owner of the dominant tenement to have access over the
servient tenement for the purposes of carrying out construction. In these circumstances the
felling of trees is not for the purpose of exercising the servitude right of access but for the
collateral purpose of construction and is unrelated to the exercise of access under the
servitude.
[72] It is clear from the wording of the second paragraph that it deals with a different
matter from the first paragraph: the second paragraph provides that it does not apply to
trees felled per the first paragraph. The second paragraph applies to trees “removed from
pipelines, cables, the power house and Access Routes.” The servitudes in Part 1 include
Page 48 ⇓
48
servitude rights of access (paras 1 and 4), a servitude right to widen roads (para 3) and a
servitude right to lay and construct pipelines (para 4). In my opinion the felling of trees in
order to exercise rights of access, to widen roads and lay and construct pipelines is related to
the exercise of the servitudes.
[73] I turn now to the second part of the test, namely whether servitude condition 5
confers a burden on the servient tenement and not just the then proprietor. In my opinion it
does. The servitude condition deals with paying the owner of the land in respect of trees
removed from the land in order to exercise the servitude rights. It applies where the
servitude right cannot be exercised because it is impeded by trees. The condition makes
provision for who is to undertake the work necessary to put the land in a fit state for
exercise of the servitude. In the first paragraph the work is to be undertaken by the
landowner and in the second paragraph the work is to be undertaken by the landowner and
servitude owner, and in each case provision is made as to who is to bear the cost. In
principle that is no different from the situation where a servitude right cannot be exercised
because of lack of a suitable roadway and a condition makes provision for who undertakes
and bears the cost of constructing the roadway. Payment to a landowner in connection with
the felling of trees on the route of a servitude to enable the servitude to be exercised is
payment to the owner in his capacity as owner and not in a personal capacity.
[74] Accordingly, I find that the condition in the first paragraph of Condition 5 in Part 2
of the Schedule to the IAD Servitude is not enforceable by Mr Duncan against Glasa LLP as
it does not satisfy the first limb of the test. The second paragraph on the other hand does
satisfy both parts of the test and so is enforceable by Mr Duncan against Glasa LLP as
singular successor, subject to the answers to the other questions addressed in this opinion
and to detailed averment and proof that the felling was for the specific purpose of exercising
Page 49 ⇓
49
the particular servitudes of access, road widening and pipelaying and was not just general
treefelling for the purposes of the Hydro project.
[75] Turning now to the second question, in my opinion Mr Duncan does not aver any
other way in which the servitude conditions could be enforced against Glasa LLP. Glasa
LLP is sued in its capacity as singular successor and stands in the same position as any other
singular successor being sued under the IAD Servitude. The answer to the second question
is no.
KP Servitude
[76] This deed of servitude was granted by KP in favour of Glasa LLP. It sets out various
servitudes in Part 1 of the Schedule which are subject to various servitude conditions set out
in Part 2 of the Schedule. KP seeks to enforce it against Glasa LLP. KP does so in its action
against Glasa LLP (CA137/18).
[77] Servitude condition 7 is in identical terms to servitude condition 5 in the IAD
Servitude. The servitude rights are broadly similar. There is a servitude to lay and
construct pipes (para 7 of Part 1), and various servitudes giving access for the purposes of
constructing or widening roads. The main difference is that there is no servitude right of
access for the specific purpose of erecting and installing a new bridge and road such as is to
be found in paragraph 4 of the IAD servitude. That is a significant difference as the first
paragraph of condition 7 applies to such a servitude. The servitude conditions must relate
to a servitude. The first paragraph bears to relate to a servitude over KP’s land but no such
servitude is granted. Accordingly the first paragraph cannot satisfy the first limb of the test.
Other than that, in my view in respect of the first question put to me there is no material
difference between the terms of the KP Servitude and the IAD Servitude and accordingly my
Page 50 ⇓
50
answer on the first question is the same. Accordingly, I find that the condition in the
seventh paragraph of Condition 7 in Part 2 of the Schedule to the KP Servitude is not
enforceable by KP against Glasa LLP as it does not satisfy the first limb of the test The
second paragraph on the other hand does satisfy both parts of the test and so is enforceable
by KP against Glasa LLP, subject to the answers to the other questions addressed in this
opinion and to detailed averment and proof that the felling was for the specific purpose of
exercising the particular servitudes of access, road widening and pipelaying and was not
just general treefelling for the purposes of the Hydro project.
[78] I turn now the second question.
[79] A restriction on the use of land which is not transmissible to a singular successor
may nevertheless receive effect as a personal contract between the original contracting
parties (eg Aberdeen Varieties Ltd v James F Donald (Aberdeen Cinemas) Limited at p 802).
However, in my opinion a claim against Glasa LLP on the basis that Glasa was original
party would put KP in no better position than its claim on the praedial basis.
[80] The issue which arises on a claim against Glasa LLP as original party is whether
servitude condition 7 is enforceable by KP as a term of the Deed of Servitude. That issue
turns on construction of the Deed of Servitude. The Deed of Servitude grants the Servitudes
“subject always to the Servitude Conditions” (cl 2). Accordingly the Servitude Conditions
are not free standing contractual obligations: they have effect only in so far a particular
servitude granted in the Deed of Servitude is subject to them.
[81] The first paragraph of condition 7 applies only if Glasa LLP requires to fell trees for
the “purposes of carrying out the construction of the new bridge and road”. There is no
servitude which mentions a new bridge and road. There is no servitude to which this
Page 51 ⇓
51
condition can be subject. The answer to the second question in respect of the first paragraph
of condition 7 is no.
[82] By contrast, there are servitudes to which the second paragraph can be subject. It
follows that the second paragraph of the servitude condition can be enforced against
Glasa LLP as a personal contract. It must however be borne in mind that the scope of the
second paragraph is limited by the servitudes which are subject to it. It is not a free-standing
legal obligation applying to parts of the Estate not owned by KP. Nor is it a free-standing
legal obligation applicable to all parts of the Estate owned by KP: it applies only to the parts
of the Estate owned by KP which are affected by the Servitude Rights. Accordingly in my
opinion the answer to the second question is yes, subject to the answers to the other
questions addressed in this opinion and to detailed averment and proof that the felling was
for the specific purpose of exercising over KP’s land the particular servitudes of access, road
widening and pipelaying set out in the KP Servitude and was not just general treefelling for
the purposes of the Hydro project.
Question 6: Are parts of Mr Duncan’s case insofar as based on the IAD Servitude
irrelevant because the IAD Servitude (or any part of it) is unenforceable for any of the
following reasons:
a) The absence of a definition of “Servitude Area 3”;
b) The absence of a “Table of Crop Compensation per Schedule 4”;
c) The absence of a grant of any servitude rights in respect of Servitude
Area 2;
d) The designation of Mr Duncan as owner of the “Benefited Property” in
respect of the Servitude.
Pursuers’ submissions
[83] Counsel for the pursuers submitted the defective drafting might be disregarded if the
meaning was apparent from the whole (Hunter v Fox 1964 SC (HL) 95). The court may
Page 52 ⇓
52
correct an error as a matter of construction (Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes 2009 1 AC
1101). Extrinsic evidence may be used to interpret the wording (Robson v Chalmers Property
Investment 1965 SLT 381, 2008 SLT 1069; Houldsworth v Gordon Cumming 1910 SC (HL) 49).
[84] The reference to “Servitude Area 3” should be a reference to “Servitude Area 2”.
This was apparent when one compared the wording in the KP Servitude and also the LLP
contract. The intended route of the pipelines for the hydro scheme was beyond doubt. Two
servitude deeds were used because part of the estate was owned by the Kildermorie
Partnership and part by Mr Duncan.
[85] Counsel further submitted that servitude condition 5 provided that the clause shall
be interpreted in accordance with the Agreement. It was plain that the Table of Crop
Compensation was the table at part 11 of the schedule to the LLP contract. This
interpretation did not infringe section 5 of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 because
(1) servitude condition 5 was a servitude condition and not a real burden and (2) the
condition would retain in contractual effect as between the two original parties.
[86] He further submitted that the absence of a grant of servitude rights over Servitude
Area 2 supported the argument in relation to Servitude Area 3.
[87] He further submitted that the designation of Mr Duncan as owner of the “Benefited
Property” was a drafting error and it was clear from the deed as a whole that Mr Duncan
was the owner of the Burdened Property and the Kildermorie Partnership the owner of the
Benefited Property.
Defenders’ submissions
[88] Counsel for the defenders dealt with questions 6 and 7 together and submitted that
the answer in each was yes. He submitted that the rules for interpreting servitudes not
Page 53 ⇓
53
known to law are the same as for real burdens (Cusine and Paisley para 15.06; cf Title
Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 at section 14), and the full terms of the condition must be set
out in the deed (Aberdeen Varieties Ltd v James F Donald (Aberdeen Cinemas Ltd) 1939 SC 788 at
page 802, a rule preserved in the 2003 Act unless it is a public document section 5). There
was no Table of Crop Compensation in the deed and therefore no such table in the Register.
[89] He further submitted that in any event there were no averments as to what the table
was, such that this could be proof by extraneous evidence, even if that was competent.
[90] The IAD Servitude had other defects: the burdened and benefited owners were
confused and there was no grant of a servitude right over “Servitude Area 2”, and so the
deed did not make sense and could not be given effect to (Hunter v Fox 1964 SC (HL) 95 at
page 99; Cusine and Paisley para 14.47).
[91] He further submitted in relation to the KP Servitude that there was no definition of
Servitude Area 3 and no reference at all to the construction of the bridge. Condition 7 did
not make sense and could not be given effect to.
Discussion and decision
(a) Absence of definition of “Servitude Area 3”
[92] Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of the Schedule provides for a servitude of pipeline over
Servitude Area 3. This is the only reference to Servitude Area 3 in the Deed. The Definitions
section (section 1.1) contains a definition of Servitude Area 2. There is no other reference to
Servitude Area 2 in the Deed. Servitude Area 2 is defined as meaning areas shown in dotted
blue lines on Plan 5 annexed to the Deed. There is a plan attached to the deed and that plan
has areas shown in dotted blue lines. The legend on the plan describes these dotted blue
lines as “Buried Pipeline”. Reading the Deed as a whole it is clear that the reference to
Page 54 ⇓
54
“Servitude Area 3” in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of the Schedule is a typographical error for
“Servitude Area 2” and the servitude of pipeline in paragraph 5 is over the dotted blue lines
identified as pipeline in Plan 5. It is apparent to the reader that there has been a mistake. In
these circumstances the Deed should be construed so as to give effect to the parties’
intention (Hunter v Fox, Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes). The answer to this question in
respect of (a) is no.
(b) The absence of a “Table of Crop Compensation per Schedule 4”;
[93] The servitude condition in the second paragraph of paragraph 5 of Part 2 of the
Schedule to the IAD servitude provides for “payment according to the Table of Crop
Compensation per Schedule 4” There is no Schedule 4 to the IAD Servitude. There is no
Schedule 4 to the Agreement, but there is a Schedule divided into different parts. Part 4 of
the Schedule to the Agreement contains a planning application, not a Table of Crop
Compensation. Part 11 of the Schedule contains a Table of Crop Compensation. Part 12 of
the Schedule consists of a draft lease and is headed “STYLE OF LEASE IN THE EVENT OF
TERMINATION IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 17”. Part 4 of the Schedule to the style lease
consists of a Table of Crop Compensation, which is the same table as appears in part 11 of
the Schedule to the LLP Agreement. Although clause 17 made provision for the possibility
of the style lease being entered into at the option of SSE, SSE did not exercise that option and
the lease was not entered into. The servitude condition provides that in the event of any
difference of opinion on the terms of this clause it shall be interpreted in accordance with the
Agreement.
[94] A servitude condition is binding not only on the parties to the deed of servitude but
also on their singular successors. It is therefore important that full information about the
Page 55 ⇓
55
servitude condition is contained in the Deed of Servitude. The Deed of Servitude is a public
document available from the Registers of Scotland. Singular successors are entitled to rely
on the information which is publicly available in the Registers. They are not bound by
information contained in private contracts which are not publicly available. The principle
that parties may rely on the faith of the record is a long established one. As Lord Reid said
in Hunter v Fox at p 99:
“This provision appears in the Register of Sasines, which is open for all to see, and a
purchaser is entitled to rely on the faith of the record. He is not concerned with the
intention of the person who created the burden: he is concerned with the words
which appear in the Register of Sasines.”
[95] In my opinion the principle of faith of the record is equally applicable to a servitude
condition. In my opinion the Agreement cannot be referred to in interpreting the servitude
condition as between Mr Duncan and the singular successors to KP. The servitude
condition must be interpreted in accordance with the terms of the Deed of Servitude.
[96] There is no Schedule 4 of the Deed of Servitude. The Deed of Servitude contains no
Table of Crop Compensation. In these circumstances the second paragraph of condition 5 of
Part 2 of the IAD Deed of Servitude is void from uncertainty.
[97] The answer to this question (b) in respect of the second paragraph is yes.
[98] The answer to this question (b) in relation to the first paragraph is no, as there is no
reference in the first paragraph to the Table of Crop Compensation and so the question does
not arise.
(c) The absence of a grant of any servitude rights in respect of Servitude Area 2
[99] Although there is no grant of servitude rights over Servitude Area 2, there is a grant
of a servitude over Servitude Area 3 which, for the reasons set out above is a typographical
Page 56 ⇓
56
error for Servitude Area 2 and should be construed as referring to Servitude area 2. The
answer to this question (c) is no.
(d) The designation of Mr Duncan as owner of the “Benefited Property” in respect of the
Servitude.
[100] In my opinion it is clear from the face of the document that there is an error in the
designation of Mr Duncan as owner of the Benefited Property and of the partners in KP as
owner of the Burdened Property. Quite simply the drafter has got these the wrong way
round. The drafter got these the right way round in his definition of Mr Duncan as the
“Burdened Owner” and the partners as the “Benefited Owner”. There is no dispute that the
area of ground defined as the “Burdened Property” was owned by Mr Duncan. The various
areas of “Benefited Property” are defined in clause 1.1 in terms of various dispositions and
there is no dispute that the parties to these dispositions are correctly identified as
Mr Duncan as Burdened Owner and the partners of KP as Benefited Owner. In these
circumstances it is clear that a mistake has been made and it is clear from the terms of the
Deed as a whole (including references in the Deed to documents available from the Land
Registers of Scotland) what the correct position is. It is open to the court to correct this
mistake as a matter of construction (Hunter v Fox, Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes), which I
now do. The answer to question (d) is no.
Question 7 Are parts of KP’s case insofar as based on the KP Servitude irrelevant because
the KP Servitude (or any part of it) is unenforceable because of the absence of a “Table of
Tree Crop Compensation per Schedule 4”?
Page 57 ⇓
57
Pursuers’ submissions
[101] Counsel for the pursuers submitted that Glasa LLP’s claim under the KP servitude
was not rendered irrelevant by the absence of a Table of Crop Compensation for reasons
similar to those in question 6. Whilst owner of one of the benefited properties, Glasa LLP
benefited from the servitude rights and was subject to its conditions.
Defender’s submissions
[102] The defender’s submissions on this question are set out in in relation to the previous
question.
Discussion and decision
[103] There are no material differences between the wording of the IAD Servitude and the
KP servitude in relation to this issue. However, whereas the IAD servitude is sought to be
enforced against a singular successor, the KP servitude is sought to be enforced against the
original party. A contract can be enforced against the original party even in circumstances
when it cannot be enforced against a singular successor (eg Aberdeen Varieties Ltd v
James F Donald (Aberdeen Cinemas) Limited at p 802). Accordingly the answer to this question
is not the same as the answer to question 6(b): the principle of faith of the record does not
apply.
[104] As between parties to an agreement, the parties are entitled to provide that another
contract may be looked at to assist with interpretation. The wording of the second
paragraph of condition 7 states:
“in the event of any difference of opinion on the terms of this clause it shall be
interpreted in accordance with the Glasa LLP Limited Partnership Agreement dated
20 and 21 June 2010”.
Page 58 ⇓
58
That wording demonstrates a clear intention on the part of the parties that the Agreement
could be looked at. In my view the Agreement can be looked at to interpret the words
“Table of Crop Compensation per Schedule 4”. Examination of the Agreement discloses
that there is a Table of Crop Compensation which is a defined term in the Agreement. The
Table of Crop Compensation appears in two places in the Agreement. It appears in Part 11
of the Schedule to the Agreement. It appears in Part 4 of the Schedule to the Style Lease to
be found in Part 12 of the Schedule to the Agreement. In my opinion the intention of the
parties was that the “Table of Crop Compensation” referred to in the Servitude was the
same table as appears in the Agreement. The answer to the question is no.
Question 8: Do the Pursuers aver a relevant case about the ways in which they contend
that the IAD Servitude and KP Servitude respectively were exercised by Glasa which
engage the servitude conditions? Does a relevant case for enforcement of the servitude
conditions in the IAD and KP Servitudes depend upon the road having first been
upgraded under servitude right 1 of each servitude?
Pursuers’ submissions
[105] Counsel for the pursuers submitted that the answer to the first of these questions was
yes. The actions included averments about vehicles being taken across the estate roads, and
to the felling of trees (a) to create an access to the Magharaidh intake (Servitude Right 3 in
the KP Servitude), (b) to clear the route for the pipeline north of the Abhainn Na Glasa river
(Servitude Right 7 in the KP Servitude and Servitude Right 5 in the IAD Servitude) and (c) to
clear the route for the bypass route (relevant to Servitude Rights 1 and 4 in the IAD
Servitude).
[106] Counsel for the pursuers submitted that the answer to the second of these questions
was no. There was no provision to that effect. Most of the servitude rights were exercisable
Page 59 ⇓
59
prior to the road being upgraded, and the concomitant servitude conditions were also
enforceable.
Defender’s submissions
[107] Counsel for the defender submitted that the answer to issue 8(a) was no and to
issue 8(b) yes.
[108] He submitted that the pursuers required to establish that the servitudes were being
exercised and that therefore the servitude conditions were engaged.
[109] Conditions 1 and 2 of the two servitudes provided expressly that they apply to
damage caused “by reason of the exercise of the Servitude Rights and there were no
averments about the use of the servitude. Nor were there any adequate averments of a
demand having been made in terms of condition 1.
[110] In respect of conditions 5 and 7 of the servitudes, relating to tree felling, the
condition applies where trees require to be felled for the purposes of carrying out the
construction of the new bridge and road. The conditions were not applicable as there were
no averments that there was any work done to construct a road or bridge.
Discussion and decision
[111] Mr Duncan’s averments about damage caused to roads are his action against Glasa
(CA137/18) at article 15 of condescendence. At article 15 Mr Duncan avers that
“throughout the course of the construction works that were undertaken, the
defender ..used heavy vehicles on the roads in the Kildermorie Estate, including the
roads over which it had rights under the IAD servitude”
He narrates damage caused by these vehicles and goes on to aver “Accordingly, the
Defender became liable to pay the costs of the damage in terms of conditions 1 and 2 of the
Page 60 ⇓
60
IAD Servitude”. His averments are in very general terms. They do not specify what
servitudes have been exercised nor what damage has been incurred in the exercise of what
servitude.
[112] In my opinion, Mr Duncan’s averments are irrelevant and lacking in specification as
he does not aver how damage was caused in the exercise of the particular servitude rights.
However I take into account that the commercial judge case managing this case set it down
for debate at an early stage to clarify the legal issues before any further adjustment. I would
propose to use case management powers to give Mr Duncan an opportunity to aver his case
in fuller detail. I would order him to list each servitude on which he founds and to aver
details of how that servitude was exercised and what damage was incurred in the course of
such exercise.
[113] For example, the obligation to make good damage under Servitude condition 1.1 in
part 2 of the Schedule to the IAD Servitude is limited to damage“ caused to the Burdened
Property and/or the Servitude Area 1 by reason of the exercise of the Servitude Rights.” In
order to properly aver a relevant case by reason of the exercise of Servitude Right 1
Mr Duncan would require to aver details of vehicles accessing the Burdened Property
and/or Servitude Area 1 for the particular purpose of “laying constructing, inspecting,
repairing, maintaining, renewing ,replacing and widening” the particular road mentioned in
that Servitude Right 1. He would require to aver what damage was caused in exercising
access for those purposes. In order to properly specify a relevant case by reason of the
exercise of Servitude Right 2 Mr Duncan would require to aver that the road had been
upgraded in terms of Servitude Right 1 and that it was subsequently used for access and that
damage had been caused in exercise of that access. I would require Mr Duncan to aver
mutatis mutandis the equivalent details for all other servitude rights on which he founds.
Page 61 ⇓
61
[114] The same issues of relevance and specification arise in relation to KP’s claim for
damages for the exercise of servitudes under the KP Servitude in KP v Glasa LLP (CA138/18).
These issues in that case fall to be dealt with in the same way: I would require KP to list
each servitude right on which it founds and give full specification of its exercise and the
damage caused by such exercise. For example Servitude Right 3 is a servitude right of
vehicular access to widen roads and verges and upgrade drainage ditches. KP makes no
averments that roads or verges were widened or drainage ditches were upgraded. KP
makes no averment that any vehicle exercised access in order to widen the roads or verges
or upgrade drainage ditches. KP makes no averment of any damage caused by vehicles
accessing to widen or upgrade. If KP was founding on Servitude Right 3, it would require to
specify details of (1) the widening of specific roads and verges and the upgrading of specific
ditches, (2) access by vehicles for such widening and upgrading and (3) damage caused by
such access.
[115] Accordingly, on the basis of the current pleadings the answer to the first question is
no.
[116] The answer to the second question depends on which Servitude Right is sought to be
enforced.
[117] In the IAD Servitude, Servitude Right 2 is stated to be over Servitude Area 1 as
upgraded in terms of Servitude Right 1. Accordingly Servitude Right 2 does not arise until
the road has been upgraded and the answer to the second question in respect of Servitude
Right 2 is yes. Servitude Right 4 falls into two parts: a right of access to build a new road
and bridge and thereafter a right of access over the road and bridge. In respect of the second
part, the answer to the second question is yes. The answer in relation to Servitudes 1, 3
and 5, which are not conditional on a road being upgraded or built, is no.
Page 62 ⇓
62
[118] In the KP Servitude, Servitude Right 2 does not arise until the road is upgraded and
the answer to question 2 in respect of Servitude Right 2 is yes. Servitude Rights 1,3,4,5,6
and 7 are not conditional on the upgrading of the road and the answer to question 2 in
respect of these Servitude Rights is no.
Question 9: Is any obligation on Glasa to pay compensation under servitude condition 5
of the IAD Servitude, servitude condition 7 of the KP Servitude, and clause 28 of the LLP
Contract conditional upon (a) Glasa making a request by written notice that trees be
felled, (b) the tree felling being carried out in accordance with an agreed felling
programme; and (c) of the other procedures specified in those clauses being satisfied?
Pursuers’ submissions
[119] Counsel for the pursuers submitted that the answer to this was no. The various
procedural provisions were not conditions suspensive of Glasa LLP’s obligation to pay
compensation merely establish a mechanism for reaching agreement on the trees to be felled
and ensuring the trees were felled in a responsible manner. A failure to follow these
procedures might have given the parties reason to object to the felling at the time, but the
procedures had no continuing relevance once the trees had been felled. Once parties agree
which trees were to be felled, and the trees were felled without objection, Glasa LLP’s
obligation to pay compensation was triggered. Accordingly a relevant claim for tree felling
compensation did not require any averments about the procedures specified in the
questions.
Defender’s submissions
[120] Counsel for the defenders submitted that answer to this question was yes.
Page 63 ⇓
63
[121] Clause 28 had not been complied with as no written notice had been given. There
was no averment of a tree felling programme having been agreed in advance. In any event
the clause only applies after “Commencement of Construction”.
[122] He submitted that the relevant servitude conditions should be given the same
interpretation as clause 28.
[123] He further submitted that the pursuer’s averments anent discussions about felling
with a representative of SSE were irrelevant and lacking in specification.
Discussion and decision
IAD and KP Servitudes
[124] Condition 5 of the IAD Servitude and condition 7 of the KP servitude are the same
and so I shall treat them together.
[125] Conditions 5 and 7 contain two separate and distinct paragraphs.
[126] The meaning of the first paragraph is clear. Liability under the first paragraph arises
only in the circumstances where the Benefited Owner wishes to fell trees for carrying out the
construction of a new bridge and road. If so the benefited owner must give a written notice.
If the Burdened Owner consents then the Burdened Owner arranges a sale. Compensation
is payable in relation to “such sale”. The condition is not a general provision for
compensation for tree felling. It is a provision for compensation for a specific sale
specifically requested by the Benefited Owner. In order to plead a relevant case for payment
under the first paragraph of condition 5 or 7 Mr Duncan or KP would require to aver that
the felling was for the purposes of the construction of the new bridge and road, written
notice had been given and consented to and a sale arranged. Accordingly in relation to the
first paragraph of condition 5 and 7 the answer to (a) is yes (b) is no and (c) is yes.
Page 64 ⇓
64
[127] The second paragraph does not apply to tree felling in respect of the new bridge and
road. Instead it applies to trees removed from pipelines, cables, the power house and Access
Routes. No written notice is required and all that is required is an agreed tree felling
programme. In relation to the second paragraph of conditions 5 and 7 the answer to (a) is no
(b) is yes and (c) is yes.
Clause 28
[128] Clause 28.1 is conditional upon a written notice but makes no reference to a tree
felling programme. The answer in respect of Clause 28.1 is (a) yes (b) no (c) yes.
[129] Clause 28.2 makes no reference to a written notice but obliges KP or Glasa LLP to
carry out tree felling in accordance with a felling programme agreed between them in
advance. The answer in respect of Clause 28.2 is (a) no (b) yes (c) yes.
[130] Clause 28.3 (a) permits KP to fell trees by agreement with SSE. The answer in respect
of clause 28.3(a) is (a) no (b) yes (c) yes.
[131] Clause 28.3(b) permits Glasa LLP to fell trees subject to the provisions of Clause 28.2 The
answer in respect of clause 28.3(b) is accordingly the same as the answer in respect of Clause 28.2.
Clause 28.4 applies to windblow rather than felling and so the question is not relevant.
Question 10: Is the term ‘damage’ in servitude condition 1 of the IAD Servitude to be
interpreted as encompassing the loss of capital value averred by Mr Duncan in Article 20
of CA137/18? If it does not, is any other relevant case for recovery of this sum pled?
Pursuers’ submissions
[132] Counsel for the pursuers submitted that either servitude condition 1.1 or servitude
condition 1.2 was broad enough to allow recovery of the loss claimed in respect of stalking,
being a loss of capital value of the affected land, attributable to damage inflicted upon it.
Page 65 ⇓
65
Defender’s submissions
[133] Counsel for the defenders submitted that the answer to question 10 was no.
[134] Counsel submitted that the damage referred to in condition 1.1 of the IAD Servitude
was property damage, not pure economic loss. The indemnity provision in condition 1.3
was directed towards liabilities incurred to third parties and was not an indemnity in
respect of loss and damage, which would not be praedial.
[135] He further submitted that the losses were too remote. They were not losses which
arose in the ordinary course of things, and there were no averments to establish that the
losses could have been within the reasonable contemplation of the parties (McBride, The Law
of Contract in Scotland paras 22.65 – 22.73, Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish
Discussion and decision
[136] Servitude Condition 1 contains three sub-conditions but the word “damage” appears
in only the first of these.
[137] Servitude Condition 1.1 obliges the Benefited Owner to:
“make good on demand all damage caused to the Burdened Property and/or the
Servitude Area by reason of the exercise of the Servitude Rights by the Benefited
Owner..to the reasonable satisfaction of the Burdened Owner”
[138] In my opinion the damage referred to here is physical damage to the Burdened
Property or Servitude area and not the loss of capital value of the Estate. In terms of
condition 1.1, the damage must be caused to the specific items of heritable property defined
as the Burdened Property or Servitude Area. Condition 1.1 provides that the damage must
be of a kind which can be “made good” to the reasonable satisfaction of the Burdened
Owner. The words “made good” and the reference to reasonable satisfaction connote
Page 66 ⇓
66
physical repair to property. Loss of capital value due to the voluntary departure of wild
deer to neighbouring estates cannot be said to be damage to the land itself. For these
reasons, the answer to the first question is no.
[139] I now turn to the second question.
[140] Condition 1.3 is an obligation on the Benefited Owner to indemnify the Burdened
Owner in respect of claims by third parties. Such an indemnity is commonly found in
servitudes (Cusine and Paisley para 5.31). The claim for loss of capital value is not a claim
by a third party and so cannot be relevantly founded on condition 1.3.
[141] Condition 1.2 obliges the Benefited Owner to:
“use their best endeavours to ensure that the Servitude Rights are exercised so as to
cause the minimum disturbance, nuisance or annoyance as is reasonably practicable
to the Burdened Owner”
[142] Mr Duncan pleads a case on disturbance. He avers in article 20 that there has been a
reduction in deer numbers as “a direct result of the disturbance created by the Glasa LLP”.
The disturbance arose “from the passage of heavy vehicles, the felling of trees”. He avers
that “the reduction in the number of deer able to be supported by the Estate has caused a
loss of Capital Value during the period required to return the woodland to its previous
extent”.
[143] In my opinion Mr Duncan does not plead a relevant case on liability due to the
passage of heavy vehicles. In order to do so he would require to aver that Glasa LLP had
not used its best endeavours to ensure that the exercise of the access rights caused more than
minimum disturbance. He would require to specify what the minimum disturbance would
have been and to what extent that minimum had been exceeded. He would require to aver
what the effect on the deer would have been had the minimum not been exceeded. He does
Page 67 ⇓
67
not aver a causal link between the passage of vehicles and the sum sought by way of capital
value: he calculates that sum only by reference to loss of woodland.
[144] Nor does Mr Duncan plead a relevant case on liability due to the felling of trees in
respect of the exercise of the Servitude Rights. He does not aver what the minimum
disturbance by way of cutting down trees for the purpose of exercise of the servitude would
have been. He does not aver to what extent that minimum was exceeded. He does not aver
that Glasa LLP failed to use best endeavours. He does not aver which particular rights of
servitude required the cutting down of trees. He does not distinguish between the felling of
trees on Mr Duncan’s property and the felling of trees on parts of the Estate owned by other
parties. Condition 1.2 can only apply to the part of the Estate owned by Mr Duncan and
cannot apply to (for example) the felling of trees to clear the turbine site, which was owned
by Glasa LLP.
[145] The answer to the second question is no.
Order
[146] I shall put the case out by order for discussion of further procedure in the light of the
answers to the foregoing questions.