Crossco No 4 Unltd & Ors v Jolan Ltd & Ors

Crossco No 4 Unltd & Ors v Jolan Ltd & Ors

The court held that there was no binding contract, no rectification, no proprietary estoppel, no constructive trust, and no estoppel by convention preventing the landlord from relying on the break clause. The claimants' mistake was unilateral, not induced or known by the defendants, and the side letters were not legally binding. The landlord had a firm and settled intention to redevelop, supported by planning permission, agreements for lease, and funding, and thus satisfied section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The landlord was entitled to terminate the lease and recover possession.

Parties
Claimant: Crossco No. 4 Unlimited; Claimant: Piccadilly; Claimant: Philip Noble; Defendant: Jolan Limited; Defendant: Jolan Piccadilly Limited; Defendant: John Corbitt Barnsley; Defendant: Gill Elizabeth Noble
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil (landlord and Tenant, Equity, Contract, Estoppel, Constructive Trust) / Final Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; landlord's claim for possession and termination of tenancy allowed.
Legal Topics
Break Clause, Proprietary Estoppel, Constructive Trust, Rectification, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Side Letters, Demerger, Lease Variation, Intention to Redevelop, Section 30(1)(f) Opposition
Landlord and Tenant Equity Contract Property Law Break Clause Proprietary Estoppel Constructive Trust Rectification +6 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 20
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crossco No. 4 Unlimited

Claimant

Piccadilly

Claimant

Philip Noble

Claimant

Jolan Limited

Defendant

Jolan Piccadilly Limited

Defendant

John Corbitt Barnsley

Defendant

Gill Elizabeth Noble

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (landlord and Tenant, Equity, Contract, Estoppel, Constructive Trust) / Final Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord is estopped or otherwise prevented from relying on the break clause in the lease to recover possession of the ground floor from the tenant
  2. 2 Whether there was a binding contract, rectification, proprietary estoppel, constructive trust, or estoppel by convention preventing the landlord from terminating the lease
  3. 3 Whether the landlord has established the ground of opposition under section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no binding contract, no rectification, no proprietary estoppel, no constructive trust, and no estoppel by convention preventing the landlord from relying on the break clause. The claimants' mistake was unilateral, not induced or known by the defendants, and the side letters were not legally binding. The landlord had a firm and settled intention to redevelop, supported by planning permission, agreements for lease, and funding, and thus satisfied section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The landlord was entitled to terminate the lease and recover possession.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; landlord's claim for possession and termination of tenancy allowed.

Orders

  • The main claim by Crossco No. 4 Unlimited, Piccadilly, and Philip Noble is dismissed.
  • The landlord (Jolan Piccadilly Ltd) is entitled to an order for termination of the tenancy under section 29(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.