The rights of landlords to curb tenants’ unauthorised building work has come under High Court scrutiny in a case that has balanced the remedies of damages against injunctions.
Hart J has refused to grant an injunction to a landlord who complained that unauthorised building work being carried out by a tenant could amount to trespass because it extended beyond the landlord’s premises.
The lease provided that the tenant was not entitled to carry out building work without prior licence from the landlord, although it stipulated that such a licence should not be unreasonably withheld.
After the tenant began the work without obtaining a licence and the landlord subsequently complained, the tenant claimed that its failure to apply for a licence had been an oversight. But it failed to give the undertaking required by the landlord to stop work until consent had been given.
The landlord sought an injunction, but the judge, in dismissing the application, supported the tenant, who had argued that damages would be a satisfactory remedy in the event of the landlord later proving that its consent to the work had not been unreasonably withheld.
The judge took the view that damages would be adequate, adding that if it were shown that the landlord had been entitled to withhold consent, the tenant would also face having to reinstate the premises.
Wallshire Ltd v Somerfield Property Co Ltd Chancery Division (Hart J) 23 July 2003.
References: PLS News 24/07/03
