The European Medicines Agency has decided to take its second chance to argue that Brexit is a frustrating event in its property dispute with Canary Wharf Group and lodged its appeal against February’s High Court ruling.
The agency was given permission in March to appeal the ruling in favour of Canary Wharf Group by Mr Justice Marcus Smith.
He said at the time that the case had “significant ramifications” and that an appeal could “have a real prospect of success”.
See also: EMA Brexit dispute analysed by the QCs who fought the case
In February, the judge ruled in favour of Canary Wharf Group after nearly a 10-day long trial, that Brexit would not “frustrate” the EMA’s £13m-a-year lease at Churchill Place, E14, which runs until 2039 with no break clause.
This has left the EMA facing the prospect of having to sublet the building and act as a commercial landlord for the next 20 years.
If the ruling had gone in the EMA’s favour, it would have been able to walk away from the property after Brexit without paying further rent and, according to evidence given during the trial by Canary Wharf Group chief executive and chairman Sir George Iacobescu, this would have immediately cost CWG £264m owing to the financing arrangements of the building.
In his ruling, the judge said that, while the EU may not want to have the headquarters of one of its agencies in a non-EU country, there was no legal reason why it should not.
He did though acknowledge that Brexit is “a seismic event”, but said that it didn’t change the fact that the parties had negotiated an “out clause” in the lease if the EMA decided to leave.
Following the ruling, Iacobescu said: “We have always firmly believed that Brexit did not amount to a frustration of the EMA’s lease. We fulfil our contracts and expect other parties with whom we enter contracts to respect the law and their own obligations, particularly in the case where a party is created and backed by an international institution.
“If the EMA had been successful, it could have undermined fundamental principles of English law and set an unfortunate precedent. We will continue to co-operate as landlords with the EMA, as provided for contractually in our lease agreement.”
To send feedback, e-mail louise.dransfield@egi.co.uk or tweet @DransfieldL or @estatesgazette
