Image from Google Jackets

Costain Property Developments Ltd v Finlay & Co Ltd

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1989) 57 PCR 345-358(14)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: QBD 5 August 1988 Action by Costain (C) against Finlay (F) for breach of a user covenant in an underlease granted by C to F of two units in a shopping centre . F covenanted to keep the premises open as a shop . The shop had been unprofitable and had been closed for two and a half years. On selling the reversion, C claimed that as a result of the closure the price of the reversion was £300,000 less than would have been received if the shop had been kept open. The point at issue was whether C was entitled to damages for breach of covenant in addition to the damage that would have been caused by taking steps to dispose of the underlease including placing the underlease on the market for two and a half years and if so what was the measure of the damages. QBD held that the shop closure had a detrimental effect upon the shopping centre and greatly reduced the possibility of selling the centre. The closure therefore had an effect on the sale of the reversion and the measure of damages was t
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS41119 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 28324-1001

QBD 5 August 1988 Action by Costain (C) against Finlay (F) for breach of a user covenant in an underlease granted by C to F of two units in a shopping centre . F covenanted to keep the premises open as a shop . The shop had been unprofitable and had been closed for two and a half years. On selling the reversion, C claimed that as a result of the closure the price of the reversion was £300,000 less than would have been received if the shop had been kept open. The point at issue was whether C was entitled to damages for breach of covenant in addition to the damage that would have been caused by taking steps to dispose of the underlease including placing the underlease on the market for two and a half years and if so what was the measure of the damages. QBD held that the shop closure had a detrimental effect upon the shopping centre and greatly reduced the possibility of selling the centre. The closure therefore had an effect on the sale of the reversion and the measure of damages was t