London Trocadero Ltd v Family Leisure Holdings Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1037 (26 July 2012)

London Trocadero Ltd v Family Leisure Holdings Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1037 (26 July 2012)

FLH, as owner of the machines and authorised by the Tenant (WEAP), was entitled to remove its goods from the premises in accordance with the Lease; LTL's refusal constituted wrongful interference with goods. The Lease provisions extended rights of access and removal to those authorised by the Tenant. FLH had standing to sue for interference with its property. The judge's order on costs was a proper exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1037
Parties
Appellant/defendant: London Trocadero Limited; Respondent/claimant: Family Leisure Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Order Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lease Interpretation, Wrongful Interference With Goods, Standing to Sue, Costs in Litigation
Property Law Commercial Law Tort Law Lease Interpretation Wrongful Interference With Goods Standing to Sue Costs in Litigation

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Trocadero Limited

Appellant/defendant

Family Leisure Holdings Limited

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Order Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether FLH had the right to remove amusement and gaming machines from the premises under the Lease
  2. 2 Whether FLH had standing to sue for wrongful interference with goods
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of Lease provisions regarding removal and access

Ratio Decidendi

FLH, as owner of the machines and authorised by the Tenant (WEAP), was entitled to remove its goods from the premises in accordance with the Lease; LTL's refusal constituted wrongful interference with goods. The Lease provisions extended rights of access and removal to those authorised by the Tenant. FLH had standing to sue for interference with its property. The judge's order on costs was a proper exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • FLH entitled to remove machines from premises in accordance with Lease terms
  • LTL to pay FLH's costs of the application for relief, except no order as to costs for hearing on 23 September 2011