Introduction

The case of Rutland Court Real Estate against Anderson Strathern LLP ([2025] CSOH 25) before the Scottish Court of Session addresses complex issues arising from a commercial lease dispute. The pursuer, Rutland Court Real Estate, claims that the office property in Edinburgh was not left in the proper state of repair at the termination of its lease with the defender, Anderson Strathern LLP. Central to the dispute is the interpretation of repair and maintenance obligations under the lease, the determination of necessary remedial works—and particularly, the quantification of their reasonable cost—and whether the appointed reporter had exhausted his remit in addressing these issues.

The case involves intricate procedural and substantive points, specifically the extent of the reporter’s jurisdiction, the mandatory answering of questions under the joint remit, and whether the reporter may rely on additional expert assistance. A key aspect is whether breach findings supported a reliable quantification of loss, despite evidential deficiencies on the part of the pursuer.

Summary of the Judgment

In his opinion, Lord Sandison critically examined the performance of a chartered building surveyor (“the reporter”) who was tasked with ascertaining both the factual existence of repair deficiencies and the reasonable costs required to remedy them.

The Judgment is structured around three main questions:

• Whether the reporter has exhausted his remit in determining and quantifying repair deficiencies (the “exhaustion of jurisdiction” question).
• Whether his jurisdiction permits him to assign a value to the cost of remedial works despite any prior agreement or lack of active dispute regarding certain cost estimates.
• Whether he may engage external expert assistance, such as an independent quantity surveyor, to resolve technical issues.

Lord Sandison found that on several key issues, the reporter had indeed failed to exhaust his jurisdiction. For example, although he determined that certain repair deficiencies existed and constituted breaches of the lease, he did not quantify the “reasonable costs” as required by clause 3.2.4 of the joint remit. The Judgment further emphasizes that a reporter is compelled to answer all remitted questions regardless of the adequacy or agreement inherent in the evidential material provided.

Consequently, clear directions were issued for the reporter to address any outstanding matters, including the calculation of cost values, while remaining judicious about the engagement of additional experts.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment makes reference to several precedents which shed light on the parameters of a reporter’s duty and the evidentiary thresholds required:

• Blantyre v Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock Railway Co (1851): This is cited for the principle of “exhaustion of the reporter’s remit.” Lord Sandison quotes Lord Wood’s language regarding the necessity for the report to be conclusive on the facts remitted, reinforcing the obligation to provide answers on all questions—especially cost quantification—even if certain questions (e.g., the necessity of remedial works) remain ambiguous.
• Williams v Cleveland and Highland Holdings Limited (1993 SLT 398): This case confirms that the reporter’s performance is narrowly circumscribed by the terms of the remit. The case underscores that only cogent objections based on performance or principles are actionable, a view that supports the critic’s argument about the importance of fully addressing question 4 (cost determination).
• HFD Management Services LLP Family Pension Trust v Apleona HSG Ltd ([2023] CSOH 15) and BAM Buchanan Ltd v Arcadia Group Ltd (2013 Hous LR 42): These more contemporary references illustrate the application of established principles to modern disputes and highlight the limits of a reporter’s jurisdiction in engaging external assistance.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning is deeply rooted in the objective construction of the joint remit. Key points include:

• Obligation to Answer All Remitted Questions: The reporter’s remit requires him to determine for each alleged repair deficiency whether it existed, whether it constituted a breach, whether remedial works were necessary, and—crucially—the cost of these works. Even when evidence is ambiguous or when some technical aspects (such as the necessity of employing independent experts) remain unresolved, an answer on the cost must be provided.
• Substitution for Proof in Court: The joint remit allows the reporter’s opinions to serve as a substitute for a formal trial of fact. Lord Sandison likens the reporter’s role to that of a “deputy judge,” provided he acts within the remit’s broad discretion, thereby imposing a strict duty to address each remitted question regardless of evidential limitations.
• Equality and Independence in Fact-Finding: The reporter’s task is to provide definitive answers based on his expertise. The Judgment underscores that even if parties have reached an agreement on certain remedial cost figures, it does not relieve the reporter of his duty to state his independent opinion, which then informs the court’s determination.

Impact on Future Cases and the Area of Law

This judgment is likely to have wide-ranging implications in commercial real estate disputes and other contractual disputes where a reporter is appointed:

• Clarification of a Reporter’s Duties: Future cases will benefit from a clearer delineation that a reporter must fully exhaust his jurisdiction, including the quantification of costs irrespective of collateral agreements between the parties.
• Limiting the Scope of External Assistance: The judgment reinforces that while a reporter may request additional evidence or clarification, the engagement of third-party experts is not an automatic entitlement. This could impact how technical disputes are handled in remitted matters.
• Evidentiary Burden on Claimants: The decision highlights that a failure by the claimant to provide cogent and reliable evidence results in a corresponding inability of the reporter to assign a cost—thereby limiting recovery. This may incentivize stricter evidentiary requirements in future leasing disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Given the intricate nature of the legal concepts discussed, several key points are simplified as follows:

• Exhaustion of Jurisdiction: The reporter must answer all the questions set out in his remit. Even if he finds that remedial work is not necessary, he still must state his opinion on the cost if a breach is determined.
• Joint Remit: This is an agreed set of instructions provided by the court that the reporter must follow. It outlines which facts need to be determined about repair deficiencies and their costs.
• Independent Determination vs. Party Agreement: Even if the parties agree on a fact (such as a repair cost estimate), the reporter is required to give his own independent determination. His report is the authoritative fact-finding instrument for the court.
• External Assistance: The reporter can interview experts or request further evidence but may not go as far as hiring a separate expert unless expressly allowed by the remit. This keeps the process within defined boundaries.

Conclusion

In summary, the Judgment of Lord Sandison in Rutland Court Real Estate against Anderson Strathern LLP represents a significant development in how reporters’ remits are interpreted and applied in complex lease repair disputes. The court made clear that:

• Reporters are required to fully exhaust their jurisdiction by providing definitive answers on all remitted questions, including the quantification of remedial costs despite evidentiary shortfalls.
• The reporter’s duty to provide a conclusive factual basis overrides any partial agreements between the parties, meaning that his independent opinion is decisive.
• There are limits to how far a reporter can go in relying on third-party expertise, with any such engagement needing to fall strictly within the boundaries set by the joint remit.

This ruling reinforces the necessity for precise adherence to the terms of a joint remit in reporter proceedings and clarifies that failure on the claimants’ part to provide robust evidence will directly affect their ability to recover damages. The decision sets a clear precedent for future cases in real estate and contractual disputes, where the integrity and completeness of expert reports will be closely scrutinized by the courts.