We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Search

What can we help you with today?

Skip to main

Case: XA22/23

Andrew William Michael Christie-Miller and others as Trustees of Roxburghe Second Discretionary Trust v Robin Douglas Lindsay Batchelor

Watch previous livestream hearing

About this case

Case name

Andrew William Michael Christie-Miller and others as Trustees of Roxburghe Second Discretionary Trust v Robin Douglas Lindsay Batchelor

Case reference number

XA22/23

Date of hearing

Tuesday 31 October 2023

Division

First

Judges

Lord President, Lord Pentland, Lord Boyd of Duncansby

Agents and Counsel

For the Appellant (Roxburghe Trustees)

  • Agents: Anderson Strathern LLP
  • Counsel: Robert Sutherland

For the Respondent (Robin Douglas Lindsay Batchelor)

  • Agents: Blackadders
  • Counsel: William Frain-Bell

Case description

This is an appeal under section 88 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003. It concerns the correct interpretation of the provisions of a lease between the parties.

The appellants are the landlords of a farm and land at Easter Muirdean, Kelso. The respondent is the tenant. The appellants contend that the respondent is in breach of the terms of his lease for failing to carry out repairs to fencing and walling on the property. On 6 December 2021, the appellants served a notice to quit on him as a result of this alleged breach. They seek his removal from the property.

The respondent disputes that he is in breach of the terms of the lease. He accepts that certain repair works to the fences, gates and gateposts are required, and that he is required to pay half the cost of these repairs to the appellants. However, he does not accept that he has an obligation to arrange the maintenance works; he argues that is the responsibility of the appellants.

The First Division will hear the appeal on Tuesday 31 October 2023.