Flats — Long lease offered — Landlord planning to build secure parking bays and charge for use — Tenants objecting to plan and claiming right to park freely — Application for injunction pending trial of action to establish whether right to park existed — High Court holding that tenants entitled to injunction
The plaintiffs were the tenants of a block of flats known as St Stephens Close, London NW8. The defendant was the freehold owner of the flats and the private areas around the close. The close was built about 1936 and was a purpose-built block of 50 flats. They were expensive flats costing a few hundred thousand pounds. They were approached down two private roads, the first off Avenue Road and the other by a private road known as Broxwood Way, which extended into St Edmunds Terrace. The close formed part of the Avenue Close Estate and within that estate were the private roads and other areas where cars could and had been parked. In the 1970s long leases were offered to the tenants, but nothing was said about parking when those leases were granted.
By letter dated November 9 1992 the defendant informed the plaintiffs that work to provide secure parking bays in the private areas around the close would begin on November 16. The erection of such bays would enable the defendant to let them to the plaintiffs and others. The plaintiffs objected and brought proceedings claiming their right to park. Pending the action they sought an injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing or otherwise interfering with the free parking of the plaintiffs.
Held The plaintiffs were entitled to the injunction sought.
1. The court had to decide whether there was a serious issue to be tried; whether the defendant or the defendant to deny that which it had allowed or encouraged the plaintiffs to assume: see The August Leonbardt [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 28, at p35; Habib Bank Ltd v Habib Bank AG Zurich [1982] RPC 1, at p36.
2. On the evidence there was a serious issue to be tried whether the defendant was estopped from denying that the plaintiffs had the right to park. The tenants had exercised a right to park since 1936 and had for nearly 50 years believed that they had that right. It was reasonably arguable that both the landlords and the tenants had over many years acted upon the assumption that the tenants had a right to park and that it would be inequitable for the present landlord to be allowed to resile from that position.
3. The proposed work to provide secure parking bays would substantially interfere with the plaintiffs’ claimed right to park and damages would not be adequate to compensate them for that interference nor the disturbance created by the work. It would not be right to allow the defendant to inflict upon the plaintiffs the disturbance that would occur if the security bays were erected particularly as damages would be a reasonably adequate remedy for the defendant under a cross undertaking as to damages.
Simon Berry QC and Phillip Kremen (instructed by Rochman Landau) appeared for the plaintiffs; Kim Lewison QC and Mark Warwick (instructed by Edge & Ellison Calow Easton) appeared for the defendant.
