Johnson v Luxcool Ltd & Ors [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWCH 1591 (QB), 15 July 2008. Damages claims can only be pursued when the claimant has a legal basis for making a claim. A club owner (J) claimed damages for damage done to the structure of premises and damages to her goods following her eviction from the premises by the third defendant property owner (H). After J's eviction H had removed the roof. J claimed that goods under the roof had been damaged and that she had spend large sums fitting out the structure of the premises before eviction and so was entitled to compensation for loss of value of the works or cost of repairing the structures. Held: claim struck out. J was not a tenant of any part of the premises, but simply a trespasser or a bare license. J's claims depended on her having a tenancy. J's evidence was not reliable. There was no clear evidence that damage had been caused to goods allegedly belonging to J as a result of the removal of the roof.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 145576-1001 |
[2008] EWCH 1591 (QB), 15 July 2008. Damages claims can only be pursued when the claimant has a legal basis for making a claim. A club owner (J) claimed damages for damage done to the structure of premises and damages to her goods following her eviction from the premises by the third defendant property owner (H). After J's eviction H had removed the roof. J claimed that goods under the roof had been damaged and that she had spend large sums fitting out the structure of the premises before eviction and so was entitled to compensation for loss of value of the works or cost of repairing the structures. Held: claim struck out. J was not a tenant of any part of the premises, but simply a trespasser or a bare license. J's claims depended on her having a tenancy. J's evidence was not reliable. There was no clear evidence that damage had been caused to goods allegedly belonging to J as a result of the removal of the roof.