Monopro Ltd v Central Hall Developments Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1509 (TCC) (22 May 2017)

Monopro Ltd v Central Hall Developments Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 1509 (TCC) (22 May 2017)

Both respondents were in breach of undertakings and a consent order for a significant period, without adequate excuse; the seriousness of the obligation to insure a substantial property warranted a financial penalty, apportioned equally between the company and its director.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1509 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Monopro Limited; First Respondent: Central Hall Developments Ltd; Second Respondent: Jagtar Singh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Committal (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Application for Committal
Outcome
Application for committal granted; fines imposed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Undertaking, Consent Order, Insurance Obligations, Committal Proceedings, Mitigation of Penalty
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Contempt of Court Breach of Undertaking Consent Order Insurance Obligations Committal Proceedings Mitigation of Penalty

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monopro Limited

Claimant

Central Hall Developments Ltd

First Respondent

Jagtar Singh

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Committal (contempt of Court) / Judgment on Application for Committal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents breached undertakings and a consent order requiring insurance to be effected on the property
  2. 2 Whether there was reasonable excuse for non-compliance
  3. 3 What penalty is appropriate for the admitted breach

Ratio Decidendi

Both respondents were in breach of undertakings and a consent order for a significant period, without adequate excuse; the seriousness of the obligation to insure a substantial property warranted a financial penalty, apportioned equally between the company and its director.

Court Disposition

Application for committal granted; fines imposed.

Orders

  • Fine of £3,750 on Central Hall Developments Ltd
  • Fine of £3,750 on Jagtar Singh personally