Khosa & Anor v Ganesarayan & Anor [2026] EWHC 662 (Ch) (20 March 2026)

Khosa & Anor v Ganesarayan & Anor [2026] EWHC 662 (Ch) (20 March 2026)

The transfer did not include the airspace above the extension; the installation of the units on the roof constituted trespass; damages in lieu of injunction are appropriate, capitalised at £50,000; an injunction is granted but suspended unless and until planning permission for development of the airspace is obtained and cannot be implemented with the units in place.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 662 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Harbrinder Singh Khosa; Claimant: Jasbir Kaur Khosa; Claimant: Rajinder Singh Khosa; Defendant: Manmatharayan Ganesarayan; Defendant: Sivananthy Ganesarayan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Trespass, Flying Freehold, Injunctions, Damages in Lieu of Injunction, Construction of Property Transfer, Suspended Injunctions
Property Law Equity Trespass Flying Freehold Injunctions Damages in Lieu of Injunction Construction of Property Transfer Suspended Injunctions

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harbrinder Singh Khosa

Claimant

Jasbir Kaur Khosa

Claimant

Rajinder Singh Khosa

Claimant

Manmatharayan Ganesarayan

Defendant

Sivananthy Ganesarayan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of property included the airspace above the extension (flying freehold)
  2. 2 Whether installation of refrigeration units on the roof constituted trespass
  3. 3 Whether an injunction or damages in lieu should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer did not include the airspace above the extension; the installation of the units on the roof constituted trespass; damages in lieu of injunction are appropriate, capitalised at £50,000; an injunction is granted but suspended unless and until planning permission for development of the airspace is obtained and cannot be implemented with the units in place.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the transfer did not include airspace above the extension; units constitute trespass.
  • Damages in lieu of injunction awarded in the sum of £50,000.