Cases - Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd

Record details

Name

Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd

Date

[2012]

Citation

EWHC 1422 (Ch)

Keywords

Commercial property - landlord and tenant - easements

Summary

Each of the flats in a development had the benefit of the use of a designated parking space and when the landlord obtained planning permission to construct a new building, it took the view that it was entitled under the leases to require the tenants to accept alternative car parking spaces. The tenants were offered alternative spaces but none of them agreed to this. Subsequently, the landlord fenced off the area for the new building which included the tenants’ car parking spaces. The tenants sought an injunction to restrain the landlord from building on their car parking spaces.

The High Court found that the lease did not reserve a right for the landlord to build on the car parking spaces. Since an express right was conferred to use the car parking space, only clear language would indicate that the right could be overridden and the language used in the lease did not clearly have that effect. The Court also found that the landlord did not have any implied right to change the designated parking spaces, pointing out that a servient owner does not generally have a right unilaterally to extinguish an easement over one area of land on provision of an equivalent easement over another area. Cooke J:

‘The alleged lack of inconvenience to the dominant landowner is not a reason to imply a right to change what has been granted to him. Nor is it relevant to say that he would have had no reason to require the use of any particular space and that the 'essence' of the right granted is merely to park somewhere; the right granted is to park in a particular space and it simply cannot be construed as being only to park in any place from time to time designated by the landlord’.

The tenants were awarded an injunction against the proposed development.