Castle Trustee Ltd & Ors v Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd [2017] EWHC 1889 (TCC) (26 July 2017)

Castle Trustee Ltd & Ors v Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd [2017] EWHC 1889 (TCC) (26 July 2017)

The Defendant has an arguable defence to the claims and it would be wrong to penalise the Defendant for evidential difficulties when no application for relief from sanctions had yet been heard. Permission to defend was granted, conditional upon the Defendant lodging an application for relief from sanctions and making a payment into court.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1889 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Castle Trustee Limited; Claimant: Enola Limited; Claimant: Liberty Nominees Limited; Claimant: Liberty Property (GP) Limited; Defendant: Bombay Palace Restaurant Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Application for Summary Judgment at Pre Trial Review
Outcome
Conditional permission to defend granted; summary judgment refused at this stage.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Relief From Sanctions, Leasehold Disputes, Closure Compensation, Additional Works Claims
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Relief From Sanctions Leasehold Disputes Closure Compensation Additional Works Claims

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

Parties

Castle Trustee Limited

Claimant

Enola Limited

Claimant

Liberty Nominees Limited

Claimant

Liberty Property (GP) Limited

Claimant

Bombay Palace Restaurant Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (technology and Construction Court) / Application for Summary Judgment at Pre Trial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim for closure compensation and additional works under the contract
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted to the Claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant has an arguable defence to the claims and it would be wrong to penalise the Defendant for evidential difficulties when no application for relief from sanctions had yet been heard. Permission to defend was granted, conditional upon the Defendant lodging an application for relief from sanctions and making a payment into court.

Court Disposition

Conditional permission to defend granted; summary judgment refused at this stage.

Orders

  • Defendant to lodge and serve an application for relief from sanctions by noon on 2 June 2017
  • Defendant to pay £148,000 into court by 4:30pm on 9 June 2017