Alma Property Management Ltd v Crompton & Anor [2022] EWHC 2671 (Ch) (28 October 2022)

Alma Property Management Ltd v Crompton & Anor [2022] EWHC 2671 (Ch) (28 October 2022)

The claimant is not estopped from enforcing the repairing obligations under the CP Lease against the defendants after reasonable notice, as there was no sufficient detrimental reliance by the defendants to preclude enforcement. The AGA condition imposed for assignment was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The court declines to refuse specific performance on grounds of claimant's conduct or equity.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2671 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Alma Property Management Limited; Defendant: Richard George Crompton; Defendant: Jonathan Edward Cookson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Property, Trusts and Probate List / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for specific performance granted; defendants liable to carry out the Works under the CP Lease.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Estoppel, Lease Assignment, Repairing Obligations, Indemnity, Reasonableness of Conditions
Property Law Equity Landlord and Tenant Specific Performance Estoppel Lease Assignment Repairing Obligations Indemnity +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alma Property Management Limited

Claimant

Richard George Crompton

Defendant

Jonathan Edward Cookson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Property, Trusts and Probate List / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the claimant estopped from enforcing repairing obligations against the defendants?
  2. 2 Are the defendants entitled to indemnity as agents?
  3. 3 Was the condition requiring AGAs for assignment of the CP Lease reasonable?

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is not estopped from enforcing the repairing obligations under the CP Lease against the defendants after reasonable notice, as there was no sufficient detrimental reliance by the defendants to preclude enforcement. The AGA condition imposed for assignment was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The court declines to refuse specific performance on grounds of claimant's conduct or equity.

Court Disposition

Claim for specific performance granted; defendants liable to carry out the Works under the CP Lease.

Orders

  • Defendants to carry out identified repair works as specified in Appendix B to the Amended Particulars of Claim.
  • Claimant's condition requiring AGAs for assignment of CP Lease upheld as reasonable.