A property company in the William Pears Group has won a damages claim against its solicitor, Norton Rose, for serving an erroneous notice against one of its tenants.
Talisman Property Co claimed that as a result of the notice, which incorrectly informed the tenant that Talisman would oppose, rather than accept, a tenancy renewal application, it was forced to pay the tenant almost £180,000 in compensation.
The High Court has awarded it £53,700 in damages, which amounts to around one-third of the compensatory payout.
Talisman initially retained Norton Rose to act on its behalf in the 2001 purchase of a warehouse in Dukes Road, Park Royal, London W3. The site was occupied by Wyko Industrial Service, which, in 1997, had taken over the lease from sister company Lewis DMR.
Lewis had sought to renew the tenancy in 2001, but the then landowner had served upon it a notice of opposition.
After Talisman took over, it instructed Norton Rose to serve a new notice of response on Wyco in order to demonstrate that it was the tenant. However, contrary to Talisman’s directions, that notice also opposed the application, and Talisman became liable to pay Wyco £179,000 in statutory compensation.
Judge Behrens said that the mistake had cost Talisman an opportunity to argue, during negotiations, that it was not liable to pay compensation because Wyco had held the tenancy and the first notice was therefore invalid.
However, he assessed the damages at only one-third on the ground that, if the notice had been correct, Wyco would have gone into negotiations with a strong argument that Lewis was the actual tenant and was therefore entitled to compensation.
Talisman Property Co (UK) Ltd v Norton Rose Chancery Division (Judge Behrens) 18 November 2005.
Bernard Livesey QC and Mark Loveday (instructed by Vizards Livesey Cameron Walker) appeared for the claimant; Roger Stewart Qc and David Halpern (instructed by Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert) appeared for the defendant.
References: EGi Legal News 22/11/05
