Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors

Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors

The First Defendant breached the lease by carrying out unauthorised works to the floor, resulting in excessive noise transmission and actionable nuisance. The Second and Third Defendants, as occupiers and decision-makers for the works, are also liable in nuisance. The landlord (Fourth Defendant) is not liable as it did not authorise or participate in the nuisance. Damages and mandatory orders are appropriate remedies.

Parties
Claimant/respondent/appellant: Sarvenaz Fouladi; First Defendant/appellant: Darout Limited; Second Defendant/appellant: Ahmed El Kerrami; Third Defendant/appellant: Sarah El Kerrami; Fourth Defendant/respondent: St Mary Abbots Court Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal by First to Third Defendants dismissed; Claimant's appeal against Fourth Defendant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Breach of Lease, Damages, Remedies, Quiet Enjoyment
Landlord and Tenant Tort Contract Nuisance Breach of Lease Damages Remedies Quiet Enjoyment

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarvenaz Fouladi

Claimant/respondent/appellant

Darout Limited

First Defendant/appellant

Ahmed El Kerrami

Second Defendant/appellant

Sarah El Kerrami

Third Defendant/appellant

St Mary Abbots Court Limited

Fourth Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the works to the floor in Flat 66 constituted a breach of lease and actionable nuisance against Flat 62
  2. 2 Whether the First to Third Defendants are liable in contract and nuisance for noise transmission
  3. 3 Whether the Fourth Defendant (landlord) is liable for nuisance or breach of quiet enjoyment

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant breached the lease by carrying out unauthorised works to the floor, resulting in excessive noise transmission and actionable nuisance. The Second and Third Defendants, as occupiers and decision-makers for the works, are also liable in nuisance. The landlord (Fourth Defendant) is not liable as it did not authorise or participate in the nuisance. Damages and mandatory orders are appropriate remedies.

Court Disposition

Appeal by First to Third Defendants dismissed; Claimant's appeal against Fourth Defendant dismissed.

Orders

  • First to Third Defendants to pay damages at £281.25 per week from 6 November 2010 to date of order, and £40.18 per day thereafter until completion of remedial works.
  • Mandatory order requiring First Defendant to carry out remedial works to abate the nuisance, with scheme to be approved as per order.