Crazy Bear Group Ltd v Patel & Anor

Crazy Bear Group Ltd v Patel & Anor

Mr and Mrs Patel's claim for consequential loss fails because they commenced works in breach of planning conditions and the Party Wall Act, and the Basement Trespass did not cause the loss claimed. The cross-undertaking in damages is not enforceable as CBG was entitled to injunctive relief at all material times. The evidence for consequential loss is unreliable and insufficient for a fair assessment.

Parties
Claimant: Crazy Bear Group Limited; Defendant: Jagruti Patel; Defendant: Vijay Patel; Third Party: Jason Alan Hunt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Property/neighbour Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for consequential loss dismissed
Legal Topics
Trespass, Consequential Damages, Injunctions, Party Wall Act, Planning Permission, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Property Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Trespass Consequential Damages Injunctions Party Wall Act Planning Permission +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crazy Bear Group Limited

Claimant

Jagruti Patel

Defendant

Vijay Patel

Defendant

Jason Alan Hunt

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Property/neighbour Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr and Mrs Patel are entitled to consequential damages for trespass (the Basement Trespass) by Crazy Bear Group Limited and Mr Hunt resulting from an extension of an underground kitchen store-room below their land.
  2. 2 Whether the works commenced by Mr and Mrs Patel on or about 8 October 2018 were subject to the Party Wall etc Act 1996 and whether there was a breach.
  3. 3 Whether the cross-undertaking in damages given by CBG should be enforced for consequential loss.

Ratio Decidendi

Mr and Mrs Patel's claim for consequential loss fails because they commenced works in breach of planning conditions and the Party Wall Act, and the Basement Trespass did not cause the loss claimed. The cross-undertaking in damages is not enforceable as CBG was entitled to injunctive relief at all material times. The evidence for consequential loss is unreliable and insufficient for a fair assessment.

Court Disposition

Claim for consequential loss dismissed

Orders

  • No consequential damages awarded to Mr and Mrs Patel
  • Order as per judgment; parties to bear their own costs as determined by prior orders or agreement