Paragon Finance Plc v City of London Real Property Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 2001 |
| Date | 16 July 2001 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before Judge Rich, QC.
Landlord and tenant - landlord's reservation of right to develop `any land' not comprised in lease - right limited to landlord's own land
A landlord could reserve a right to develop land not comprised in the lease, thereby impinging on his covenant for quiet enjoyment, only to the extent that the reservation applied to development of land owned by him and did not prevent the tenant asserting its right to light as against any other party seeking to develop adjacent land not belonging to the landlord.
Judge Rich, QC, sitting as a deputy Chancery Division judge, so held giving summary judgment under Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the claimant, Paragon Finance plc, the sub-lessee of premises of which the Mercers Company was freeholder, on its claim against the defendant, City of London Real Property Co, for (i) a declaration that the windows of 28 King Street and 15 Lawrence Lane, London, enjoyed an easement of light over Mumford Court; (ii) an order restraining the defendant from erecting any structure on Mumford Court that would substantially interfere with the access and use of light to the windows; and (iii) damages.
Mr Paul Morgan, QC, for Paragon; Mr Jonathan Gaunt, QC, for the defendant.
HIS LORDSHIP said that the claimant's head landlord had reserved a right to develop land in the lease in the following form in clause 6(7) "without prejudice to the provisions of clause 5(1) hereof nothing herein contained or implied shall … operate to prevent or restrict in any way the development of any land not comprised in this lease". Clause 5(1) of the lease contained a covenant of quiet enjoyment.
The premises which were leased by the claimant enjoyed an easement of light under the doctrine of lost modern grant. The claimant's demise included the premises "together with appurtenances thereto belonging". The right to light was therefore included as an appurtenance in the claimant's underlease.
The landlord and the defendant planned to develop land adjacent to the claimant's premises. The proposed joint venture between them would have interfered with the light to the buildings occupied by the claimant to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TFS Stores Ltd v The Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner Ltd
...authority to the effect that service on an agent will suffice (see Galinski v McHugh (1989) 57 P&CR 539 and Yenula Properties Ltd v Naidu [2002] L&TR 9). (2) In the light of disclosure, subject to (1) and the question of the details of the “commencement date” in the relevant statutory decl......
-
RHJ Ltd v FT Patten (Holdings) Ltd
...J) he reached that conclusion without referring to the exception. 30 The third case to which I should refer is Paragon Finance plc v City of London Real Property Co [2002] 1 EGLR 97. The lease in that case provided that nothing therein contained or implied: “shall operate to prevent or rest......