Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd

Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd

The claimants' leases grant easements to park in designated spaces; the defendant has no right to unilaterally vary or extinguish those easements. Substantial interference occurred by fencing off and proposing to build on the spaces. The claimants are prima facie entitled to an injunction restraining interference, as no exceptional circumstances justify damages in lieu.

Parties
Claimant: Howard John Kettel and others; Defendant: Bloomfold Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claimants succeed; injunction granted to restrain interference with parking easements.
Legal Topics
Easements, Leasehold Rights, Injunctions, Damages, Parking Rights
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Easements Leasehold Rights Injunctions Damages Parking Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard John Kettel and others

Claimant

Bloomfold Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' entitlement to use designated parking spaces is a demise or an easement
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has a reserved right to build on the car park spaces
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can unilaterally change the designated parking spaces

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' leases grant easements to park in designated spaces; the defendant has no right to unilaterally vary or extinguish those easements. Substantial interference occurred by fencing off and proposing to build on the spaces. The claimants are prima facie entitled to an injunction restraining interference, as no exceptional circumstances justify damages in lieu.

Court Disposition

Claimants succeed; injunction granted to restrain interference with parking easements.

Orders

  • Defendant restrained from interfering with claimants' rights to park in designated spaces.
  • No right to unilaterally reallocate parking spaces without claimants' consent.