Legal case news how to get ahead in advertising, Stadium CapitalHoldings (No 2) v St Marylebone Property Company
Language: English Series: Property Week ; 77(47) 25 November 2011, 65(1)Publication details: 2011Subject(s): Summary: "Stadium Capital Holdings (No 2) v St Marylebone Property Company" [2011] EWHC 2856 (Ch), 8 November 2011 concerns how damages for trespass should be calculated in relation to an advertising hoarding erected over an adjoining owner's airspace. Claimant S owned a cleared development site. Defendant M owned the adjoining building with an advertising hoarding on its flank wall. Permission for the hoarding which projected into the adjoining airspace was terminated by M in 2005 but the hoarding stood until October 2008. S sought to recoup from M advertising revenue damages earned over that period. "Held": neither party proved the case for receipt of all the revenue so the court awarded S 50% of the revenue following normal market practice.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L154627 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 154627-1001 |
"Stadium Capital Holdings (No 2) v St Marylebone Property Company" [2011] EWHC 2856 (Ch), 8 November 2011 concerns how damages for trespass should be calculated in relation to an advertising hoarding erected over an adjoining owner's airspace. Claimant S owned a cleared development site. Defendant M owned the adjoining building with an advertising hoarding on its flank wall. Permission for the hoarding which projected into the adjoining airspace was terminated by M in 2005 but the hoarding stood until October 2008. S sought to recoup from M advertising revenue damages earned over that period. "Held": neither party proved the case for receipt of all the revenue so the court awarded S 50% of the revenue following normal market practice.