Century Projects Ltd v Almacantar (Centre Point) & Ors

Century Projects Ltd v Almacantar (Centre Point) & Ors

The claimant has an arguable case that the landlord's works may breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment or constitute a derogation from grant, but the defendants have acted on consistent professional advice and thoroughly investigated alternatives. The balance of convenience, including the risk of uncompensatable disadvantage to the defendants and the claimant's inability to meet a substantial cross-undertaking in damages, points decisively against granting an injunction. Damages are an adequate remedy for the claimant.

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
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment, Non Derogation From Grant, Interlocutory Injunctions, Lease Construction, Repair Obligations
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Contract Law Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment Non Derogation From Grant Interlocutory Injunctions Lease Construction Repair Obligations

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

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord's proposed scaffolding works breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment
  2. 2 Whether the works constitute a derogation from grant
  3. 3 Whether the lease permits the landlord to carry out such works without breaching tenant rights

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has an arguable case that the landlord's works may breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment or constitute a derogation from grant, but the defendants have acted on consistent professional advice and thoroughly investigated alternatives. The balance of convenience, including the risk of uncompensatable disadvantage to the defendants and the claimant's inability to meet a substantial cross-undertaking in damages, points decisively against granting an injunction. Damages are an adequate remedy for the claimant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • No interlocutory injunction granted
  • Defendants permitted to proceed with works as advised