Property case law update: September 2011

06 Sep 2011

Eaton Square Properties Ltd v Shaw – 29.7.11 – [2011] EWHC 2115 – QB
Residential tenancy – Relocation at landlord’s request –
Agreement as to repairs and works in temporary accommodation – Claim for breach of agreement as to repairs – Damages for economic loss.
Held: Appeal against permission to amend to include economic loss claim allowed. Damages for economic loss (disruption of business due to dispute over residential premises) could only arise out a duty of care. The three part test in Caparo was not satisfied. The purpose of the move and works was the Defendant’s residential accommodation and not related to her business.

Hirose Electrical UK Ltd v Peak Ingredients Ltd – 11.8.11 – [2011] EWCA Civ 987 – CA
Nuisance – Commercial/light industrial premises – Odours/unpleasant smells – Proper test whether amounted to a nuisance.
Held: Smells causing discomfort and inconvenience could amount to a nuisance. Whether smells amount to a nuisance depends upon the application of an objective standard taking account of the circumstances and locality, reasonable user and reciprocal regard of neighbours’ interests.

Ramzan v Brookwide Ltd – 19.8.11 – [2011] EWCA Civ 985 – CA Trepass – Storeroom and fire escape – Injunction refused – Damages – Double recovery – Loss of profits, breach of trust account for profits – Mesne profits – Damages for future impact.
Held: Damages for trespass equal to C’s loss of profit and an account for D’s profit from breach of trust were alternative and inconsistent remedies. Although mesne profits could be recovered although the premises would not have been let but where damages for lost profits were awarded and no additional loss was suffered mesne profits should not be awarded in addition. Following the refusal of an injunction and an award of a capital sum for the loss of the property damages for future loss of the property could not be awarded.

Mann Aviation Group v Longmint Aviation Ltd – 19.8.11 – [2011] EWHC 2238 – ChD
Business premises – Implied periodic tenancy – Change of ownership.
Held: A periodic tenancy would be implied where parties intended a landlord and tenant relationship, one occupied the landowner’s premises and paid a periodic sum for that occupation whether the premises were residential or commercial. Although a failure to pay the periodic rent may result in a right for the landlord forfeit but inter-company accounting for the payment of rent meant there was no failure to pay. Further no notice to terminate the tenancy was given. Accordingly the tenancy subsisted.

Case summaries by Brie Stevens-Hoare


This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.


Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Gatehouse Chambers. However, if you have any other queries about this content please contact: