About this case

Case name

Elizabeth Pirnie v Douglas Rarity

Case reference number

XA8/25

Date of hearing

Tuesday 28 October 2025

Time of hearing

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

Division

First Division

Judges

• Lord President
• Lord Doherty
• Lord Tyre

Agents and Counsel

For the Appellant (Ms Pirnie)

• Agents: Murnin McCluskey
• Counsel: Kenneth Young

For the Respondent (Mr Rarity)

• Agents: Harper Macleod LLP
• Counsel: Giles Reid

Case description

Overview

[1] Kirk Lodge in Pitlochry was divided into three separate residential properties in the 1960s. The current dispute is between the owner of 1 Kirk Lodge (the respondent) and 2 Kirk Lodge (the appellant).

[2] The parties dispute the ownership of a room (the Disputed Room) which is located on the first floor of the divided property and is currently occupied by the respondent in 1 Kirk Lodge. The appellant contends that it forms part of her title to 2 Kirk Lodge. The titles to both properties are registered on the Land Register.

[3] The respondent made an application to the Land Tribunal to amend the Land Register by removing title to the Disputed Room from 2 Kirk Lodge and include the title to the Disputed Room to1 Kirk Lodge. The appellant opposed this application contending that the Disputed Room never formed part of the title to1 Kirk Lodge when it was first conveyed in 1966 (the 1966 Disposition). Her position was that it formed part of the title to 2 Kirk Lodge when it was conveyed in 1960.

The Land Tribunal

[4] The Land Tribunal heard the proof on 6 August 2024, and a decision was handed down on 17 December 2024. The Tribunal found that the Disputed Room had been occupied from March 1966 by the heritable proprietors of 1 Kirk Lodge continuously. The nature of that occupation was exclusive in respect of the respondent, who has enjoyed exclusive occupation of the Disputed Room since moving into 1 Kirk Lodge in 2021.

[5] The Tribunal considered the application for first registration of 2 and 3 Kirk Lodge in 2000. Occupation of the Disputed Room was not disputed nor was it disclosed that the Disputed Room was regulated by a lease. The Keeper was not put on notice of the occupation of the Disputed Room by the owner of 1 Kirk Lodge. The Land Tribunal were satisfied that the owners of 2 Kirk Lodge had no access to the Disputed Room from 8 December 2014, and that occupation of the Disputed Room from 1989 had been exclusive to 1 Kirk Lodge. This was a position which had not been challenged. Possession of the Disputed Room was established to be by the owner of 1 Kirk Lodge who is currently the respondent.

[6] The Land Tribunal scrutinised the title to 2 Kirk Lodge. They considered that the Disposition conveying 1 Kirk Lodge in 1966 was habile to include the Disputed Room. They considered that the Disputed Room had not been conveyed to the respondent when he bought 1 Kirk Lodge in 2021 and, therefore, it still belonged to the previous owner. As such, the Land Tribunal found there to be an inaccuracy in the Land Register, and that the title of the Disputed Room should be removed from the title of 2 Kirk Lodge. However, they were not able to rectify the Land Register without representation of the prior owner of to 1 Kirk Lodge.

The Statutory Appeal

[7] The appellant challenges this decision of the Land Tribunal. It is contended that the Land Tribunal erred in its consideration of the boundaries of properties 1 and 2 Kirk Lodge, and the descriptions contained with the respective Dispositions. The appellant contends that the Tribunal’s view that the title deeds of 1 Kirk Lodge sufficiently delineated the boundary of his property was an error. So too was the finding that it was a sufficiently precise and unambiguous bounding description so as to include the Disputed Room.

[8] It is contended that the written description of the title for 2 Kirk Lodge is sufficiently clear to include the Disputed Room in the title of 2 Kirk Lodge, which would have the effect of excluding it from the title of 1 Kirk Lodge.

[9] The appellant also contends that the Land Tribunal erred in its consideration of the terms of the original Disposition conveying 1 Kirk Lodge. The tribunal placed weight on the words “as presently occupied” by the respondent’s predecessors. It is contended that the extent to which the property was occupied could not have been known and required to have circumstances that were extraneous to the Disposition.

[10] The appellant submits that whilst there is no specific mention of the Disputed Room, the Disposition to 2 Kirk Lodge was habile to include the Disputed Room. It purported to dispone a portion of the larger property with reference to the solum which would have included the room.

[11] The respondent submits in answer that he need only demonstrate that his title is habile to include the Disputed Room. He contends that the 1966 Disposition included the Disputed Room and was habile to include it. The respondent contends that the insert plan of the 1966 Disposition includes the Disputed Room as part of the title. Where a Disposition includes a plan, it is assumed to have a purpose. The respondent considers that the 1966 Disposition was sufficiently unambiguous so as to include the Disputed Room within the title of 1 Kirk Lodge

The First Division will hear this appeal on 28 October 2025 at 10.30am.