Outer House case in which a tenant (Ralph Lauren) of premises on Ingram Street in Glasgow sought to prevent the landlord (the pension fund) from letting a neighbouring unit (Unit 6) to a hairdressing salon on the basis of an obligation contained in a back letter.

The back letter granted by the pension fund provided:

“We shall not grant first lettings of that one of the Commercial Units (as defined in the Lease) known as Unit 6, situated to the north of that one of the Commercial Units let as at the date hereof to All Saints Retail Ltd, to retailers other than high quality fashion retailers as are approved by you (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed).”

Ralph Lauren sought an interim interdict on the basis that the hairdressing salon was not a high quality fashion retailer. On the other hand, the pension fund argued that, in terms of the back letter, as the hairdressing salon was not a retailer, Ralph Lauren’s permission was not required.

Ralph Lauren contended that the pension fund’s interpretation would permit the landlord to let the premises to anyone who did not sell goods which they argued was an absurd consequence given the context in which the undertaking had been given. As a result, they urged that back letter should be construed in a commercially sensible, rather than a purely literal, way.

However, Lord Glennie agreed with the pension fund’s arguments and found that the letter did not restrict the pension fund with regard to lettings to non-retailers (noting that it was “nigh impossible” to describe a hairdresser as a retailer). Whilst it was “permissible to do some slight violence to the language of a clause in a contract where a literal construction would defeat what is objectively the intention of the parties to it”, there was no basis for applying that approach in this case. There was nothing to suggest that the parties had intended a restriction on all lettings other than high quality fashion retailers. There was no evidence to suggest that a high quality fashion retailer such as Ralph Lauren would consider themselves to be prejudiced by the letting of a neighbouring unit to, for example, a restaurant or a cafe. If they had wished to prevent such a letting it would have been easy to address it in the undertaking.

Lord Glennie came to the conclusion that Ralph Lauren had not shown that they had a prima face case and refused the motion for interim interdict although leave to reclaim was granted.

The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here.

All of our property and conveyancing case summaries are contained in the LKS Property and Conveyancing Casebook here.