Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
Press "Enter" to skip to content

Author: v1mbell9

Primary rights and liability in delict

Primary rights and liability in delict

Published 25th February 2025

By John MacLeod, Senior Lecturer in Private Law, University of Edinburgh 

Since the turn of the 21st century, Common Lawyers have discussed the basis of tortious liability extensively.[1] In particular, defences have been mounted against instrumentalism (i.e. considering law in terms of social policy). Much of the analysis turns on the idea that tort is about responding to infringements of primary rights (or to breach of primary duties). Primary rights are rights (and primary duties are duties) which do not arise from infringement of another right. They are contrasted with secondary rights, which do arise from such infringements. Property rights or rights to contractual performance are primary; rights to compensation for culpable damage or breach of contract are secondary.

If torts are thus conceptualised, the reasons which justify a primary right explain the wrongfulness of the tortious action and so support liability. Justifications for primary rights can vary and need not depend on some general logic within tort law.

What, if anything, does this literature mean for Scotland?

Continue readingPrimary rights and liability in delict
Leave a Comment
Servitudes in the Sheriff Appeal Court- Acquiescence, Permission and Tolerance

Servitudes in the Sheriff Appeal Court- Acquiescence, Permission and Tolerance

Published 22nd November 2024

by Alasdair Peterson, Lecturer in Private Law, University of Edinburgh

Introduction

In a recent case, AC & IC Fraser & Son Limited v Munro [2024] SAC (Civ) 41, the Sheriff Appeal Court was faced with two issues relating to the law of servitudes: firstly, whether a landowner’s inaction in response to its neighbour’s use of a diverted route had led, through acquiescence, to a variation in the route of a vehicular right of access; and, secondly, whether an additional pedestrian right of access had been established through positive prescription despite the landowner having permitted the neighbour’s predecessor to use the route over which a servitude was now claimed.

Although these issues are doctrinally distinct, a common theme emerges from the court’s deliberations: how best to characterise a landowner’s response (or lack of response) to a neighbour using their land in a manner apparently unsupported by any existing right of servitude.

In its opinion, delivered by Sheriff Principal Pyle, the court refers to several different descriptions which could be applied to a landowner’s response (or, again, lack of response) in this context – namely “acquiescence”, “permission”, and “tolerance”. As will be seen, although these descriptions overlap in their everyday meaning, their legal meanings are substantively different. Deciding which description best characterises a landowner’s behaviour will therefore be significant when determining whether land has been burdened with a praedial servitude or remains free.

Continue readingServitudes in the Sheriff Appeal Court- Acquiescence, Permission and Tolerance
Leave a Comment
css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel