Communist ideas and Scots property law: Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University

Malcolm M. Combe

Communist ideas and Scots property law: Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University

Malcolm M. Combe

Law

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Ownership is nine-tenths of property law, or so the saying does not go. For the (unscientifically verified) one-tenth of property law disputes where ownership is not the decisive factor, something else must come into play. This brings an actual turn of phrase to mind, also entirely unscientific, namely that possession is nine-tenths of the law. How Scots law deals with cases where the owner plays but a background role is demonstrated in the case of Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University and Another [2015] SC GLA 75. That recent Sheriff Court case, about what to do with a collection of corporeal moveables in a contest between personalities with claims short of ownership, forms the subject of this note.

Original language	English
Journal	Scots Law Times
Volume	34
Publication status	Published - 25 Mar 2016

Access to Document

Accepted Manuscript
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Scots Law Times following peer review. The definitive published version [Combe, M. M., Communist Ideas and Scots Property Law: Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University. Vol 34, 2016] is available online on Westlaw UK or from Thomson Reuters DocDel service . http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/terms/journals-access-policy.htm
Accepted author manuscript, 55.5 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{4e3b8a34e9054925a0855e4ae59d108b,

title = "Communist ideas and Scots property law: Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University",

abstract = "Ownership is nine-tenths of property law, or so the saying does not go. For the (unscientifically verified) one-tenth of property law disputes where ownership is not the decisive factor, something else must come into play. This brings an actual turn of phrase to mind, also entirely unscientific, namely that possession is nine-tenths of the law. How Scots law deals with cases where the owner plays but a background role is demonstrated in the case of Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University and Another [2015] SC GLA 75. That recent Sheriff Court case, about what to do with a collection of corporeal moveables in a contest between personalities with claims short of ownership, forms the subject of this note.",

author = "Combe, {Malcolm M.}",

year = "2016",

month = mar,

day = "25",

language = "English",

volume = "34",

journal = "Scots Law Times",

issn = "0036-908X",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communist ideas and Scots property law

T2 - Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University

AU - Combe, Malcolm M.

PY - 2016/3/25

Y1 - 2016/3/25

N2 - Ownership is nine-tenths of property law, or so the saying does not go. For the (unscientifically verified) one-tenth of property law disputes where ownership is not the decisive factor, something else must come into play. This brings an actual turn of phrase to mind, also entirely unscientific, namely that possession is nine-tenths of the law. How Scots law deals with cases where the owner plays but a background role is demonstrated in the case of Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University and Another [2015] SC GLA 75. That recent Sheriff Court case, about what to do with a collection of corporeal moveables in a contest between personalities with claims short of ownership, forms the subject of this note.

AB - Ownership is nine-tenths of property law, or so the saying does not go. For the (unscientifically verified) one-tenth of property law disputes where ownership is not the decisive factor, something else must come into play. This brings an actual turn of phrase to mind, also entirely unscientific, namely that possession is nine-tenths of the law. How Scots law deals with cases where the owner plays but a background role is demonstrated in the case of Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University and Another [2015] SC GLA 75. That recent Sheriff Court case, about what to do with a collection of corporeal moveables in a contest between personalities with claims short of ownership, forms the subject of this note.

M3 - Article

SN - 0036-908X

VL - 34

JO - Scots Law Times

JF - Scots Law Times

ER -

Communist ideas and Scots property law: Canning v Glasgow Caledonian University

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this