Sanjar Mohammed Rasul & Anor v Franco Lumba

Sanjar Mohammed Rasul & Anor v Franco Lumba

There is insufficient evidence at this interlocutory stage to conclude that Mr Rasul has committed breaches of the undertakings under the Mellor Order sufficient to justify discharging paragraph 1 and allowing Mr Lumba to re-enter. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo pending inspection of the flat and further evidence. The High Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order but not to vary it absent clear breaches; applications to vary should be made in the County Court.

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
Interlocutory Application in Commercial Landlord and Tenant Dispute / Ruling on Application to Enforce or Vary Interim Injunction (mellor Order) Pending Trial of Relief From Forfeiture Claim
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Forfeiture, Interim Injunctions, Breach of Lease Covenants, Inspection Rights, Variation and Enforcement of Court Orders
Landlord and Tenant Injunctions Property Law Relief From Forfeiture Interim Injunctions Breach of Lease Covenants Inspection Rights Variation and Enforcement of Court Orders

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Sanjar Mohammed Rasul

Claimant / Respondent

Wayside Autos Limited

Claimant / Respondent

Mr Franco Lumba

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Commercial Landlord and Tenant Dispute / Ruling on Application to Enforce or Vary Interim Injunction (mellor Order) Pending Trial of Relief From Forfeiture Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant landlord is entitled to discharge or vary paragraph 1 of the Mellor Order and re-enter the property due to alleged breaches of undertakings by the claimant tenant
  2. 2 Whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to vary or enforce the Mellor Order or if such applications should be made in the County Court
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient evidence of breach of lease covenants by the claimant tenant to justify discharge of the interim order

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient evidence at this interlocutory stage to conclude that Mr Rasul has committed breaches of the undertakings under the Mellor Order sufficient to justify discharging paragraph 1 and allowing Mr Lumba to re-enter. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo pending inspection of the flat and further evidence. The High Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order but not to vary it absent clear breaches; applications to vary should be made in the County Court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the Mellor Order is not discharged; Mr Lumba is not permitted to re-enter at this stage.
  • Inspection of the flat is to take place as soon as possible with access to be given to Mr Lumba and his authorised agents on reasonable notice.