Lunn Poly Ltd and another v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (0625) 24 June 2006, 210-217(8)Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 430, 15 March 2006. Concerns the basis in terms of date for assessing damages in lieu of an injunction. Appellant landlord LI leased a shopping centre unit to tenant LU. A dispute was precipitated by a failure to come to agreement over relocating a fire door as a part of improvement works being carried out by LI. LU wanted a suitable financial incentive. LI proceeded with bricking up the fire door. LU applied for and received an injunction against LI and re-opened the fire door. LI brought an action for breach of covenant with forfeiture of lease, on the basis that LU had irregularly assigned the lease to an associated company. LU brought an action for relief from forfeiture. The judge found in LU's favour and awarded damages in lieu of an injunction. LI submitted that the damages should be assessed at the date of breach. "Held": appeal dismissed. The valuation for compensatory damages should not proceed on the basis that the lease was liable to forfeiture ("AMEC Developments v Jury's Hotel Management" (ChD, Abs63601) considered), and the judge had been entitled to refuse an enquiry as to damages.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | L133984 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 133984-1001 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 430, 15 March 2006. Concerns the basis in terms of date for assessing damages in lieu of an injunction. Appellant landlord LI leased a shopping centre unit to tenant LU. A dispute was precipitated by a failure to come to agreement over relocating a fire door as a part of improvement works being carried out by LI. LU wanted a suitable financial incentive. LI proceeded with bricking up the fire door. LU applied for and received an injunction against LI and re-opened the fire door. LI brought an action for breach of covenant with forfeiture of lease, on the basis that LU had irregularly assigned the lease to an associated company. LU brought an action for relief from forfeiture. The judge found in LU's favour and awarded damages in lieu of an injunction. LI submitted that the damages should be assessed at the date of breach. "Held": appeal dismissed. The valuation for compensatory damages should not proceed on the basis that the lease was liable to forfeiture ("AMEC Developments v Jury's Hotel Management" (ChD, Abs63601) considered), and the judge had been entitled to refuse an enquiry as to damages.