Corporate Spec Ltd v Milton & Anor [2021] EWHC 2881 (Ch) (19 July 2021)

Corporate Spec Ltd v Milton & Anor [2021] EWHC 2881 (Ch) (19 July 2021)

The claimant has an arguable case for a tenancy or periodic tenancy, and the balance of convenience favours continuation of the injunction. There was no material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the injunction. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and the undertaking in damages must be fortified by a payment into court.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2881 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Corporate Spec Limited; First Defendant: Rachel Milton; Second Defendant: 3 Thames Road Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (interim Relief) / Interim Application Before Trial (return Date Hearing)
Outcome
Injunction continued until expedited trial of preliminary issues
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Possession of Premises, Tenancy Vs Licence, Disclosure Obligations, Undertaking in Damages, Planning Permission, Fire Safety Regulation
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions Possession of Premises Tenancy Vs Licence Disclosure Obligations Undertaking in Damages +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corporate Spec Limited

Claimant

Rachel Milton

First Defendant

3 Thames Road Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (interim Relief) / Interim Application Before Trial (return Date Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of the premises
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a tenancy or only a licence of the premises
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure by the claimant on the without notice application justifying discharge of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has an arguable case for a tenancy or periodic tenancy, and the balance of convenience favours continuation of the injunction. There was no material non-disclosure justifying discharge of the injunction. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for the claimant, and the undertaking in damages must be fortified by a payment into court.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued until expedited trial of preliminary issues

Orders

  • Injunction restraining defendants from taking possession of the premises continued until trial of preliminary issues
  • Claimant to pay £250,000 into court to fortify the undertaking in damages within a specified period