000			01888cab a2200241 4500
001			ABS67532
008			040226n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125232
245			_aCardwell and others v Walker and another
260			_c2004
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2004] 04 EG 108(1) (CS)
520			_a[2003] EWHC 3117 (Ch), 19 December 2003. First appellant (W) ran a holiday village in Cornwall owned by the second appellant, his brother. W interfered with the respondent tenants' (C) easement of electricity supply by severely restricting the daily period when tenants could purchase tokens for the electricity meters installed by W in 1997. This restriction had commenced in 2000 after W had sought to increase electricity charges, which the tenants refused to accept. C began proceedings against W, the judge finding in favour of C, placing the second appellant under obligation to sell tokens on site between 0900 and 1700 daily and awarding the tenants aggravated damages. W appealed on the grounds that an easement could not impose upon the servient owner any positive obligation to do something and disputed the sum of damages awarded. "Held" appeal allowed in part. i) The second appellant W was bound by the easements granted in the leases: the installation of the meters was not an actionable interference but as soon as the appellants severely restricted the tenants' daily period for purchasing the tokens, it became one; ii) there was only a case for nominal damages, not the aggravated damages awarded earlier.
590			_aABS
650			_aELECTRICITY SUPPLY
650			_aEASEMENTS
650			_aHOLIDAY LETTINGS
650			_aCARDWELL AND OTHERS V WALKER AND ANOTHER
650			_aJOHNSTONE V HOLDWAY
650			_aDAWES V ADELA ESTATES LTD
650			_aSAINT V JENNER
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c74168 _d74168