Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd & Ors v Danovo Ltd

Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd & Ors v Danovo Ltd

Danovo established a good arguable case that the consent given by the letter of licence was a consent for the purposes of clause 9.2 of the deed, and that Shirayama could only terminate that consent on reasonable grounds. The notices given by Shirayama to terminate the signage were of questionable validity, as they were not clearly based on reasonable grounds, particularly when the replacement signage did not provide for Danovo's rights under clause 9.2. However, the balance of convenience did not justify an order compelling Shirayama to retain both existing signs. The appropriate interim order was to allow Shirayama to remove one of the two existing signs, with the remaining sign to stay...

Parties
Claimant: Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd; Claimant: Takashi Shirayama; Claimant: Miyako Shirayama; Claimant: Ayako Shirayama; Claimant: Yuichi Shirayama; Claimant: Cadogan Leisure Investments Ltd; Defendant: Danovo Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part; application for full injunctive relief refused in part.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Signage Rights, Construction of Licence and Lease, Reasonableness of Withholding Consent
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Interim Injunctions Signage Rights Construction of Licence and Lease Reasonableness of Withholding Consent

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd

Claimant

Takashi Shirayama

Claimant

Miyako Shirayama

Claimant

Ayako Shirayama

Claimant

Yuichi Shirayama

Claimant

Cadogan Leisure Investments Ltd

Claimant

Danovo Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord (Shirayama) can terminate the tenant's (Danovo's) signage rights at the Belvedere Road entrance by 28 days' notice under a letter of licence, or whether such termination is subject to a requirement of reasonableness under clause 9.2 of the deed of licence.
  2. 2 Whether the consent given by the letter of licence is to be construed as consent under clause 9.2 of the deed and thus subject to the reasonableness requirement.
  3. 3 Whether the landlord's refusal to allow continued signage or to grant consent was reasonable in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

Danovo established a good arguable case that the consent given by the letter of licence was a consent for the purposes of clause 9.2 of the deed, and that Shirayama could only terminate that consent on reasonable grounds. The notices given by Shirayama to terminate the signage were of questionable validity, as they were not clearly based on reasonable grounds, particularly when the replacement signage did not provide for Danovo's rights under clause 9.2. However, the balance of convenience did not justify an order compelling Shirayama to retain both existing signs. The appropriate interim order was to allow Shirayama to remove one of the two existing signs, with the remaining sign to stay...

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in part; application for full injunctive relief refused in part.

Orders

  • Shirayama authorised to remove one of the two existing Saatchi Gallery signs at the Belvedere Road entrance.
  • Shirayama may erect a 'Main Entrance' sign in place of the removed sign.