Johnson v Luxcool Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 1591 (QB) (15 July 2008)

Johnson v Luxcool Ltd & Ors [2008] EWHC 1591 (QB) (15 July 2008)

The claimant failed to prove the existence of any tenancy of the relevant premises; her occupation was at best a bare licence. There was no satisfactory evidence that the defendants caused damage to any goods or structures belonging to the claimant. The claims for damages, restoration of possession, and return of goods all fail.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1591
Parties
Claimant: Julie Johnson; First Defendant: Luxcool Limited; Second Defendant: David Bineth; Third Defendant: Tariq Hussain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Tenancy, Quiet Enjoyment, Trespass, Damages, Possession, Licence Vs Tenancy, Aggravated Damages, Exemplary Damages
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Tort Tenancy Quiet Enjoyment Trespass Damages Possession +3 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Johnson

Claimant

Luxcool Limited

First Defendant

David Bineth

Second Defendant

Tariq Hussain

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had a tenancy of any part of 87 or 89 Upper Clapton Road
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was dispossessed in breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment or by trespass
  3. 3 Whether the defendants caused damage to structures, fittings, or goods on the premises

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove the existence of any tenancy of the relevant premises; her occupation was at best a bare licence. There was no satisfactory evidence that the defendants caused damage to any goods or structures belonging to the claimant. The claims for damages, restoration of possession, and return of goods all fail.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed