Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 562 (07 May 2014)

Manolete Partners Plc v Hastings Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 562 (07 May 2014)

A tenant is not 'in default' within the meaning of section 106(1) of the Building Act 1984 unless in breach of an obligation under the 1984 Act itself. Breaches of other statutes, such as the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 or the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, do not constitute 'default' for this purpose. Therefore, the tenant (and its assignee) is entitled to compensation for losses caused by the Council's emergency closure of the pier under section 78, and the ex turpi causa rule does not bar the claim.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 562
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Manolete Partners Plc; Defendant/appellant: Hastings Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Technology and Construction Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for claimant/respondent upheld.
Legal Topics
Statutory Compensation, Building Safety, Dangerous Buildings, Interpretation of 'default' in Statutes, Ex Turpi Causa Defence
Public Law Local Government Law Tort Law Statutory Compensation Building Safety Dangerous Buildings Interpretation of 'default' in Statutes Ex Turpi Causa Defence

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manolete Partners Plc

Claimant/respondent

Hastings Borough Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Technology and Construction Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant (Stylus/Manolete) was 'in default' within the meaning of section 106(1) of the Building Act 1984 and thus barred from compensation for losses caused by the Council's emergency closure of Hastings Pier; Whether, absent section 78 of the 1984 Act, the tenant would have had a good cause of action against the Council for barring access to its premises; Whether breaches of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 or Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 constitute 'default' under section 106(1) of the 1984 Act; Whether the ex turpi causa rule bars the claim for compensation.

Ratio Decidendi

A tenant is not 'in default' within the meaning of section 106(1) of the Building Act 1984 unless in breach of an obligation under the 1984 Act itself. Breaches of other statutes, such as the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 or the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, do not constitute 'default' for this purpose. Therefore, the tenant (and its assignee) is entitled to compensation for losses caused by the Council's emergency closure of the pier under section 78, and the ex turpi causa rule does not bar the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for claimant/respondent upheld.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Council is liable to make full compensation under section 106 of the Building Act 1984 for damage sustained by reason of the exercise of its powers under section 78 in preventing public access to Stylus Sports Limited's premises on Hastings pier between 16 June 2006 and 12 September 2006.