Century Projects Ltd v Almacantar (Centre Point) & Ors [2014] EWHC 394 (Ch) (13 February 2014)

Century Projects Ltd v Almacantar (Centre Point) & Ors [2014] EWHC 394 (Ch) (13 February 2014)

The claimant has an arguable case that the landlord's proposed works could breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment or the obligation not to derogate from grant, but faces significant difficulties given the landlord's reliance on consistent professional advice that scaffolding is the only viable method. The balance of convenience strongly favours refusing the injunction, as the claimant cannot demonstrate ability to meet a cross-undertaking in damages and the risk of uncompensatable loss to the defendants outweighs that to the claimant.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 394 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Century Projects Limited; Defendant/respondent: Almacantar (Centre Point) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No. 1 Limited; Defendant/respondent: Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No. 2 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Injunction / High Court (chancery Division) Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment, Non Derogation From Grant, Landlord's Right to Repair, Interlocutory Injunctions, Balance of Convenience, Lease Construction
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Contract Law Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment Non Derogation From Grant Landlord's Right to Repair Interlocutory Injunctions Balance of Convenience +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Century Projects Limited

Claimant/applicant

Almacantar (Centre Point) Limited

Defendant/respondent

Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No. 1 Limited

Defendant/respondent

Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No. 2 Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Injunction / High Court (chancery Division) Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord's proposed scaffolding works breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment or the obligation not to derogate from grant
  2. 2 Whether the lease terms expressly permit the landlord to carry out the works
  3. 3 Whether the method of repair (scaffolding vs. cradles) is reasonable in light of the tenant's business impact

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has an arguable case that the landlord's proposed works could breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment or the obligation not to derogate from grant, but faces significant difficulties given the landlord's reliance on consistent professional advice that scaffolding is the only viable method. The balance of convenience strongly favours refusing the injunction, as the claimant cannot demonstrate ability to meet a cross-undertaking in damages and the risk of uncompensatable loss to the defendants outweighs that to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction dismissed
  • No order for an injunction restraining the landlord's works