Landlord and Tenant - Torts
Though this site is dedicated to personal injury claims we as a firm hold ourselves out as litigators in general. In fact, as someone who has had the advantage of having worked for high street and city practices, I have been exposed to all types of litigation. Whilst the majority of our work is based on common law litigation (personal injury) we do have experience and expertise of representing clients in the Queen’s Bench and the Chancery Division of the High Court.
In the last few years we have represented a number of clients in both divisions of the High Court in London and in the provinces.
A recent example of our success in the High Court is where we represented a land owner who had sold a piece of land consisting of garages and who had allowed the purchaser on to the land before completion of the contract for sale. The would-be purchaser entered our client’s land with our client’s permission, but whilst there demolished all of the garages. It turns out that some of the garages still were rented out to members of the public and one in particular contained, allegedly, valuables. The Tenant claimed that he had stored valuable sculptures that he had created and that these sculptures were demolished by our client’s purchaser during his permitted occupation.
We were involved in this litigation from the outset. Our client maintained that they were not responsible for the damage sustained by the Tenant, as it was the purchaser (whom accepted this fact) who had in fact demolished the garages and that the Tenant should look to the purchaser to pursue his claim for any loss and damage that he may have sustained.
We were not able to persuade the Tenant or his lawyers in correspondence and he started legal proceedings against our client and the purchaser.
The matter was before the High Court in the Chancery Division this summer.
The Tenant argued before the High Court that our client should compensate him for damage to his garage on the grounds that he was their tenant, that they had authorised the purchaser to enter the premises and demolish the garages and/or alternatively even if this was not the case, by allowing a purchaser to occupy the land they should have foreseen the actions of the purchaser i.e. this was a reasonably foreseeable risk. That our client failed to foresee the risk involved and should therefore compensate him.
In arriving at the Judgment, the Court heard evidence on behalf of our client from a number of witnesses, from the tenant and from our client’s purchasers.
The Court found that our clients were not liable in trespass for the actions of the purchaser who was allowed on to the land before completion, when the purchaser demolished the garages belonging to the tenant. Moreover, the Court also found that it was not foreseeable.
On a finding of facts and in the law of negligence the Court found in our client’s favour. However, it needs to be borne in mind that when allowing would-be purchasers onto your land before completion, it is essential that a watertight agreement is reached between your solicitors and your purchaser. Whilst there was a condition attached to the Contract for Sale in our clients Conveyance, there were issues raised on these terms and on representation made by our client’s agent.
It is therefore rather risky to allow would-be purchasers on to one’s land before completion for any purpose unless (other than perhaps merely viewing) without expressly making relevant provisions in the contract of sale. In this case, the Purchaser’s ostensible reasons for demolishing the garages was that it was necessary do so as various roofs of garages that were removed whilst soil testing was being been carried out by the Purchaser’s contractors had now led to the garages becoming unsafe. Whilst our client has succeeded in this case they have had to incur a significant amount of costs to defend these allegations.
The moral of this story is twofold:
1) It is prudent to always have everything expressly agreed beforehand to ensure a true ‘meeting of the minds’. Then you must embody the agreement in writing preferably with the legal assistance of a experienced and knowledgeable lawyer.
2) At the first sign of any trouble or disagreement with any party to the agreement, it is advised that you speak to your solicitor as soon as possible. In this case our client came to us from the very outset of this dispute. This meant that we could begin to compile evidence, make representations and also identify any other parties who could be also liable forthwith. Ultimately High Court litigation is a long and often arduous process and the more often than not the difference between winning and losing can be marginal. The value a solicitor adds to your case is being able to identify your issues from the outset, ascertain your objective and work towards a speedy resolution in a time and cost effective manner.
If you have any further questions, or wish to obtain further information about our services please contact Abdul Hafezi, telephone 0208 377 0811 or email aah@hafezis.com or alternatively visit our firm website www.hafezis.com