Claimant companies occupying different parts of premises owned by parent company and paying service charge accordingly – Defendants allegedly causing disturbance while constructing Jubilee Line extension – Whether claimants had sufficient proprietary interest in premises to maintain actions in nuisance or negligence
The five claimant companies were wholly owned by Chapter Group plc (Chapter), which owned office premises in St Thomas Street, adjacent to London Bridge Station. Four of the claimants (the occupying companies) operated independently in particular sectors of the insurance market and occupied different parts of the premises. The third claimant, CHS, was responsible for the provision of services to the occupying companies. As a matter of management accounting (to enable Chapter to monitor the relative performance of the occupying companies) CHS levied an annual service charge on the occupying companies, one element of which was a “rent” determined from time to time by reference to the area occupied.
From January 1994 until early 1998 the claimants suffered disruption caused by the defendants’ work on the Jubilee underground line extension, which involved the closure of St Thomas Street while tunnelling and other operations were conducted under and around London Bridge Station. The claimants brought an action in nuisance and/or negligence, complaining that the defendants had conducted the work in a dilatory manner and had failed to keep the resulting obstruction, noise, dust, vibration and mess within reasonable bounds. The alleged heads of damage included loss of business, loss of productive staff time, staff absenteeism through sickness, and additional travel and accommodation costs. It fell to be determined as a preliminary issue whether the defendants were correct in contending that the interests of claimants in the premises were insufficient to support their claims. No ruling was sought on whether the claimants had title to sue in public nuisance.
Held: Judgment was given for the defendants.
1. Claims in private nuisance lay for injury to land where such injury was inflicted by encroachment, physical damage or, as alleged in the present case, by interference with its quiet enjoyment (loss of amenity): see per Lord Lloyd in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655 at p695. As held in Hunter, a claimant alleging loss of amenity (as instanced by the inconvenience, annoyance or illness suffered by persons on the land) was required, like other claimants in nuisance, to establish that he had an interest in the land affected, whether as owner, lessee or licensee with exclusive possession. The same applied to actions in negligence where there was no claim for personal injuries: see Leigh & Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd [1986] AC 785.
2. None of the claimants occupied under a written tenancy agreement, and it was far from clear what parts of the premises were allocated to any one claimant at any particular time. Furthermore, some parts, notably dining rooms and conference room for common use, were plainly not in the exclusive possession of any person. The evidence was further complicated by the presence of other companies in the Chapter group in parts of the premises during the period of the alleged disturbance. On the evidence before the court none of the claimants had a sufficient proprietary interest in any of the property to maintain an action in nuisance or negligence.
3. The claimants could not rely on their collective occupation, there being no special circumstances to indicate that the corporate veil was a mere façade: see per Slade LJ in Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 2 WLR 657 at p755.
Finola O’Farrell (instructed by Clyde & Co) appeared for the claimants; Timothy Lord (instructed by Watmores) appeared for the defendants.
Alan Cooklin, barrister
