New v Gromore Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 2807 (Ch) (6 November 2009)

New v Gromore Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 2807 (Ch) (6 November 2009)

Mindcross Limited is liable in trespass and wrongful interference with goods for demolishing the claimant's garage and clearing his goods, as these acts were not authorised by the First and Second Defendants or Mr Pennell. The First and Second Defendants did not authorise or ratify Mindcross's actions, nor did they owe a non-delegable duty in the circumstances. Mr Pennell did not act in breach of duty. Liability for the loss rests solely with Mindcross Limited.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2807 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Terry New; First Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Gromore Limited; Second Defendant / Part 20 Claimant: Munshi Investments Limited; Third Defendant: Mindcross Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Andrew Pennell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Property / Landlord & Tenant / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim against First and Second Defendants dismissed; claim against Mindcross Limited succeeds on liability; inquiry as to damages ordered; all contribution and indemnity claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Trespass, Wrongful Interference With Goods, Breach of Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment, Contribution and Indemnity, Construction of Tenancy Agreements
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Tort Law Trespass Wrongful Interference With Goods Breach of Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment Contribution and Indemnity Construction of Tenancy Agreements

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

Parties

Terry New

Claimant

Gromore Limited

First Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Munshi Investments Limited

Second Defendant / Part 20 Claimant

Mindcross Limited

Third Defendant

Andrew Pennell

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property / Landlord & Tenant / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mindcross Limited is liable in trespass for demolishing the claimant's garage
  2. 2 Whether Mindcross Limited is liable in trespass or wrongful interference with goods for clearing the claimant's goods
  3. 3 Whether the First and Second Defendants authorised Mindcross to demolish the garage or clear the goods, and are thus liable

Ratio Decidendi

Mindcross Limited is liable in trespass and wrongful interference with goods for demolishing the claimant's garage and clearing his goods, as these acts were not authorised by the First and Second Defendants or Mr Pennell. The First and Second Defendants did not authorise or ratify Mindcross's actions, nor did they owe a non-delegable duty in the circumstances. Mr Pennell did not act in breach of duty. Liability for the loss rests solely with Mindcross Limited.

Court Disposition

Claim against First and Second Defendants dismissed; claim against Mindcross Limited succeeds on liability; inquiry as to damages ordered; all contribution and indemnity claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim against Gromore Limited and Munshi Investments Limited dismissed
  • Claim against Mindcross Limited succeeds on liability; damages to be assessed