Mean Fiddler Holdings Ltd v Islington

Mean Fiddler Holdings Ltd v Islington

The arrangements with external promoters did not amount to sharing occupation or breach of clause 2(23)(a) of the lease because the claimant retained exclusive control over the premises; sharing a business or its profits is not the same as sharing occupation.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mean Fiddler Holdings Limited; Compensating Authority/appellant: London Borough of Islington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Lands Tribunal on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lease Interpretation, Alienation Clauses, Sharing Occupation, Compulsory Purchase Compensation
Land Law Landlord and Tenant Lease Interpretation Alienation Clauses Sharing Occupation Compulsory Purchase Compensation

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mean Fiddler Holdings Limited

Claimant/respondent

London Borough of Islington

Compensating Authority/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Lands Tribunal on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's occupation and/or use of the subject property was in breach of its lease, specifically clause 2(23)(a) regarding sharing occupation

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangements with external promoters did not amount to sharing occupation or breach of clause 2(23)(a) of the lease because the claimant retained exclusive control over the premises; sharing a business or its profits is not the same as sharing occupation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs; costs assessed at £12,000 plus VAT (if so entitled); leave to apply to Carnwath LJ in writing on notice to the other side about the VAT point.