Alma Property Management Limited v Richard George Crompton & Anor.

Alma Property Management Limited v Richard George Crompton & Anor.

The court found that although there was a common understanding that the Claimant had taken over management and provision of services for the Building from 2016, there was insufficient detriment to the Defendants to estop the Claimant from enforcing the repairing obligations after reasonable notice. However, specific performance was refused as the Defendants, having acquired the CP Lease as receivers and agents for the Claimant, were entitled to indemnity, and the Claimant had an adequate alternative remedy. The condition requiring AGAs as a prerequisite for assignment to NTRML was unreasonable, as it would enhance the Claimant’s position at the Defendants’ expense, and the Defendants were...

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
Civil (property, Trusts and Probate) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Estoppel, Assignment of Lease, Indemnity of Receivers, Reasonableness of Conditions on Assignment
Landlord and Tenant Law Property Law Equity Specific Performance Estoppel Assignment of Lease Indemnity of Receivers Reasonableness of Conditions on Assignment

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alma Property Management Limited

Claimant

Richard George Crompton

Defendant

Jonathan Edward Cookson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property, Trusts and Probate) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is estopped from enforcing repairing obligations against the Defendants under the CP Lease
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants are entitled to indemnity as receivers acting as agents for the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant unreasonably imposed a condition (AGAs) on consent to assign the CP Lease to NTRML

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although there was a common understanding that the Claimant had taken over management and provision of services for the Building from 2016, there was insufficient detriment to the Defendants to estop the Claimant from enforcing the repairing obligations after reasonable notice. However, specific performance was refused as the Defendants, having acquired the CP Lease as receivers and agents for the Claimant, were entitled to indemnity, and the Claimant had an adequate alternative remedy. The condition requiring AGAs as a prerequisite for assignment to NTRML was unreasonable, as it would enhance the Claimant’s position at the Defendants’ expense, and the Defendants were...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part

Orders

  • Specific performance of the repairing obligations in the CP Lease against the Defendants is refused.
  • The Defendants are entitled to assign the CP Lease to NTRML without the Claimant’s consent or the requirement to enter into AGAs.