Rasul & Anor v Lumba [2025] EWHC 319 (Ch) (14 February 2025)

Rasul & Anor v Lumba [2025] EWHC 319 (Ch) (14 February 2025)

Insufficient evidence to conclusively establish serious breach of undertakings by Mr Rasul; High Court retains jurisdiction to enforce Mellor Order but not to vary or discharge paragraph 1 absent clear breach; proper inspection of flat required to determine compliance; application to discharge paragraph 1 refused.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 319 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Mr Sanjar Mohammed Rasul; Claimant / Respondent: Wayside Autos Limited; Defendant / Applicant: Mr Franco Lumba
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Procedural Posture
High Court Enforcement Application (interlocutory) / Application to Enforce/ Vary Interim Injunction Order (mellor Order) Pending Trial
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Relief From Forfeiture, Lease Covenants, Interim Injunctions, Enforcement of Court Orders, Emergency Prohibition Orders, Jurisdiction and Procedural Transfer
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Injunctions Civil Procedure Relief From Forfeiture Lease Covenants Interim Injunctions Enforcement of Court Orders +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Sanjar Mohammed Rasul

Claimant / Respondent

Wayside Autos Limited

Claimant / Respondent

Mr Franco Lumba

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

High Court Enforcement Application (interlocutory) / Application to Enforce/ Vary Interim Injunction Order (mellor Order) Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Rasul breached undertakings under Mellor Order
  2. 2 Whether paragraph 1 of Mellor Order should be discharged to allow landlord re-entry
  3. 3 Jurisdiction of High Court to enforce or vary Mellor Order

Ratio Decidendi

Insufficient evidence to conclusively establish serious breach of undertakings by Mr Rasul; High Court retains jurisdiction to enforce Mellor Order but not to vary or discharge paragraph 1 absent clear breach; proper inspection of flat required to determine compliance; application to discharge paragraph 1 refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Claimant (Mr Rasul) must permit landlord (Mr Lumba) inspection of flat on reasonable notice
  • No discharge of paragraph 1 of Mellor Order