Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v London Borough Of Bromley [2002] EWCA Civ 1752 (18 October 2002)

Biggin Hill Airport Ltd v London Borough Of Bromley [2002] EWCA Civ 1752 (18 October 2002)

The court cannot declare additional activities as permitted under the lease beyond those already determined in its judgment. The form of order must reflect only the court's previous findings, with the exception of an undertaking by Bromley regarding emergency diversions.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1752
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Biggin Hill Airport Limited; Defendant/respondent: Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Bromley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Judgment Order Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lease Interpretation, Declaratory Relief, Airport Operations, User Clause Construction
Contract Law Property Law Lease Interpretation Declaratory Relief Airport Operations User Clause Construction

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biggin Hill Airport Limited

Claimant/applicant

Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Bromley

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Judgment Order Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific activities fall within the user clause of the lease
  2. 2 Whether the court can declare additional activities as permitted under the lease beyond its previous judgment
  3. 3 Whether the form of order should reserve BHAL's right to contend for further permitted activities

Ratio Decidendi

The court cannot declare additional activities as permitted under the lease beyond those already determined in its judgment. The form of order must reflect only the court's previous findings, with the exception of an undertaking by Bromley regarding emergency diversions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Form of order as preferred by Bromley, excluding BHAL's proposed clause but including Bromley's undertaking regarding emergency diversions
  • Appellants to have 75% of their costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed