Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. News and events
  3. Legal news
  4. Disposition a non domino invalid for prescription: appeal sheriffs

Disposition a non domino invalid for prescription: appeal sheriffs

5th March 2020 | property (non-commercial)

A disposition a non domino by a couple to themselves in the same capacity was on its face a nullity and could not found prescriptive possession, the Sheriff Appeal Court has ruled.

Sheriff Principal Derek Pyle, Sheriff Principal Craig Turnbull and Appeal Sheriff William Holligan allowed an appeal by Ardnamurchan Estates Ltd, who claimed title to 5,000 square yards of ground in respect of which Michael and Karen MacGregor had in 1994 granted and registered a disposition to themselves. The sheriff ruled in favour of the defenders, distinguishing Board of Management of Aberdeen College v Youngson (2005) and holding the disposition valid.

Sheriff Principal Turnbull, delivering the opinion of the court, said it was not disputed that a person could not enter into a contract with themselves. While there were exceptions, such as if the person was acting in the capacity of trustee on one side, the respondents did not aver that any exception applied in this case. They argued instead that for the purposes of positive prescription, it was irrelevant whether any exception actually applied; the mere possibility meant the deed was not invalid on its face. But that was "a curious proposition, particularly in circumstances where the respondents have no averments which might be said to support such a proposition".

"In our opinion," he ruled, "the 1994 disposition is invalid ex facie. It is unnecessary to look beyond the 1994 disposition to reach such a conclusion. It affords complete and exclusive proof of its nullity – it purports to dispone the subjects from the respondents to the respondents in exactly the same capacity. The defect is intrinsic."

The court went onto express the view, contrary to a further argument for the respondents, that Aberdeen College had been correctly decided, and was also indistinguishable on its facts, in so far as relevant to the present issue. "Neither the existence of a special destination in the designation of the disponees, nor the purported grant of a new servitude right of access in the 1994 disposition formed a basis upon which the decision in Board of Management of Aberdeen College could properly be distinguished. The sheriff erred in so doing."

Further, had the court concluded that the 1994 disposition was ex facie valid, it would have concluded that its recording was not sufficient in respect of its terms to constitute in favour of the respondents a real right in the subjects in terms of s 1 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973: they could not at the same time intend to be both divested of property and invested in the same property, and there was no transfer of ownership in such circumstances.

Click here to view the opinion of the court.

Add To Favorites

Additional

  • News and events

In this section

  • Law Society news
  • CPD & Training
  • Blogs & opinions
  • Events
  • 75th Anniversary

Categories

  • civil litigation
  • criminal law
  • employment
  • obituary
  • careers
  • practice management
  • law society of scotland
  • government-administration
  • welfare/benefits
  • family-child law
  • reparation
  • professional regulation
  • property (non-commercial)
  • insolvency
  • consumer
  • human rights
  • mental health-adult incapacity
  • planning/environment
  • europe
  • information technology
  • immigration
  • education-training
  • executries
  • corporate
  • commercial property
  • agriculture-crofting
  • dispute resolution
  • risk management
  • intellectual property
  • client relations
  • tax
  • licensing
  • banking-financial services
  • trusts-asset management
  • reviews
  • opinion
  • For the public
  • Research and policy
  • Regulation
  • Journal online news
  • interview

News Archive

  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013

Related articles

  • October Scots house prices remain stable year-on-year
  • Ministers set out path to ending fossil fuel heating
  • Scots house prices stay firm in latest figures
  • August house price average still firm: RoS figures
Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited