Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd v Stinger Compania De Inversion SA [2011] EWCA Civ 607 (18 May 2011)

Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd v Stinger Compania De Inversion SA [2011] EWCA Civ 607 (18 May 2011)

The appellant had no right under the underleases to place air conditioning units on the roof without the respondent's consent. The respondent's refusal of consent was not unreasonable given the likely opposition of the Grosvenor Estate and the risk of breaching the Headlease Covenant. There was no real prospect of the appellant successfully defending the claim, and summary judgment was appropriate. The award of indemnity costs was justified by the appellant's high-handed pre-litigation conduct and disproportionate conduct of the litigation.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 607
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Stinger Compania de Inversion S. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment and Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Proprietary Estoppel, Landlord's Consent, Summary Judgment, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Civil Procedure Trespass Proprietary Estoppel Landlord's Consent Summary Judgment Costs (indemnity Basis)

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Stinger Compania de Inversion S. A.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Summary Judgment and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the installation of air conditioning units by the appellant constituted trespass absent the respondent's consent
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unreasonably withheld consent to the installation/retention of the units
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel or representations by the respondent prevented it from objecting

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant had no right under the underleases to place air conditioning units on the roof without the respondent's consent. The respondent's refusal of consent was not unreasonable given the likely opposition of the Grosvenor Estate and the risk of breaching the Headlease Covenant. There was no real prospect of the appellant successfully defending the claim, and summary judgment was appropriate. The award of indemnity costs was justified by the appellant's high-handed pre-litigation conduct and disproportionate conduct of the litigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant shall pay the respondent's costs of and occasioned by the appeal, including those of the appellant's application to adduce additional evidence.