About this case

Case name

Nicol's Worsteds Limited v HLT Stakis Operator Limited

Case reference number

CA24/23

Date of hearing

Tuesday 18 August 2026

Time of hearing

10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion

Division

First Division

Judges

• Lord President
• Lord Wise
• Lord Ericht

Agents and Counsel

For the Reclaimers (Nicol's Worsteds Limited)

• Agents: Brodies LLP
• Counsel: Ross McClelland, KC and David Ford, sol adv

For the Respondent (HLT Stakis Operator Limited)

• Agents: CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
• Counsel: Gavin Walker, KC and Ross Anderson

Case description

[1]    Nicols Worsteds Limited are the landlords and HLT Stakis Operator Limited the tenants under a commercial sub-lease of premises known as the Grosvenor Hilton Hotel in the west end of Glasow. The sub-lease, dated 6 March 2001, expired on 31 December 2021. The reclaimer (Nicol’s) raised commercial proceedings in this court seeking payment of damages on the basis that the respondent (Stakis) had failed to obtemper its repairing and maintenance obligations under the sub-lease.

[2]    The repairing obligation was to keep the premises in “good and substantial repair and condition”. The obligation was limited, whereby the tenant was not required to deliver up the premises in a better state of repair and condition “than that evidenced by” a schedule of condition.

[3]    The issues have narrowed significantly since the commercial judge gave his Opinion following a preliminary proof: [2025] CSOH 116. The central dispute between the parties now surrounds the construction of the tenant’s repair and maintenance obligation. In obiter remarks, the commercial judge observed that, properly construed, the tenant’s obligation did not require the premises to be delivered up in a better state of repair and condition than existed at the commencement of the sub-lease, evidenced by the schedule of condition: [85]-[88].

[4]    The reclaimer contends that the commercial judge fell into error. It argues that the only limitation to the requirement to keep the premises in good and substantial repair is by reference to the condition of the premises captured within the schedule of condition, rather than that at commencement of the sub-lease. Put another way, where an item is not captured by the schedule of condition, it is subject to the general obligation to keep in good and substantial repair and is not limited by the state of repair at the commencement of the sub-lease. The respondent’s position is that the commercial judge did not err.