P & S Amusements Ltd v Valley House Leisure Ltd & Anor

P & S Amusements Ltd v Valley House Leisure Ltd & Anor

The tenant is bound by the beer tie provision and has been in breach by not purchasing beer from the landlord's nominated supplier since the nomination of Carlsberg-Tetley in November 2002. The landlord is not accountable to the tenant for discounts received from the brewery, as no fiduciary duty arises. No damages inquiry will be ordered for alleged pre-2002 breaches due to insufficient evidence. Competition law issues remain to be tried.

Parties
Claimant/part 20 Defendant: P & S Amusements Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Valley House Leisure Limited; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Peter Alfred Valentine
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (landlord and Tenant/contract) / Judgment on Split Trial of Liability (excluding Competition Law and Quantum)
Outcome
Claimant partially succeeds; counterclaim dismissed (subject to competition law issues); no injunction granted at this stage; damages inquiry deferred.
Legal Topics
Beer Tie Provisions, Breach of Lease, Fiduciary Duties, Damages, Nomination of Supplier, Competition Law (reserved)
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Beer Tie Provisions Breach of Lease Fiduciary Duties Damages Nomination of Supplier Competition Law (reserved)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P & S Amusements Limited

Claimant/part 20 Defendant

Valley House Leisure Limited

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Peter Alfred Valentine

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil (landlord and Tenant/contract) / Judgment on Split Trial of Liability (excluding Competition Law and Quantum)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the tenant bound by the beer tie provision after nomination of a new supplier?
  2. 2 Is the landlord accountable to the tenant for discounts received from the brewery?
  3. 3 Is the tenant liable for damages for alleged purchases outside the tie?

Ratio Decidendi

The tenant is bound by the beer tie provision and has been in breach by not purchasing beer from the landlord's nominated supplier since the nomination of Carlsberg-Tetley in November 2002. The landlord is not accountable to the tenant for discounts received from the brewery, as no fiduciary duty arises. No damages inquiry will be ordered for alleged pre-2002 breaches due to insufficient evidence. Competition law issues remain to be tried.

Court Disposition

Claimant partially succeeds; counterclaim dismissed (subject to competition law issues); no injunction granted at this stage; damages inquiry deferred.

Orders

  • No injunction granted at this stage due to pending competition law issues.
  • P&S entitled to an inquiry as to damages for post-nomination period, subject to outcome of competition law trial.