Malt Mill Developments Ltd & Anor v Davis [2002] EWCA Civ 440 (13 March 2002)

Malt Mill Developments Ltd & Anor v Davis [2002] EWCA Civ 440 (13 March 2002)

The appellant's failure to remove graffiti, despite repeated requests, constituted a material breach of the cleaning obligation under the side-letter. This breach was sufficient to justify the respondents' reasonable opinion that the appellant was not properly performing his functions, entitling them to terminate the arrangement. The trial judge's findings on the facts and the exercise of discretion regarding costs were not plainly wrong and should not be disturbed on appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 440
Parties
Respondent: Malt Mill Developments Ltd; Respondent: Anchor Brewhouse Management Company; Appellant: Norman Harold Davis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Leasehold Covenants, Termination of Contractual Arrangements, Reasonableness of Opinion, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Contract Law Service Charges Leasehold Covenants Termination of Contractual Arrangements Reasonableness of Opinion Costs (indemnity Basis)

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malt Mill Developments Ltd

Respondent

Anchor Brewhouse Management Company

Respondent

Norman Harold Davis

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to terminate the side-letter arrangement regarding service charge abatement for failure to perform cleaning obligations.
  2. 2 Whether the directors of the management company formed a reasonable opinion that the appellant was not properly performing his functions under the side-letter.
  3. 3 Whether the breach was sufficiently serious to justify termination of the arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's failure to remove graffiti, despite repeated requests, constituted a material breach of the cleaning obligation under the side-letter. This breach was sufficient to justify the respondents' reasonable opinion that the appellant was not properly performing his functions, entitling them to terminate the arrangement. The trial judge's findings on the facts and the exercise of discretion regarding costs were not plainly wrong and should not be disturbed on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is to pay the respondents' costs on an indemnity basis.