Kiran Rajaram Patwardhan & Anor v Ivygate Developments Limited
[2022] EWHC 3367 (Ch)
Maria El Massouri v Omani Estates Limited
4 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1312 (Ch)
High Court
A fight over attic space in two different leases. The judge decided who owned it and when. The current tenant gets to keep it for now, but the landlord can get it back when the lease ends. The person who really owns the building wasn't involved in this case.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over the inclusion of attic space in leases (Claimant's Lease: NGL515428; Frimpong Lease: BGL19306).
- •Claimant's Lease described the property as a second-floor flat, including ceilings, floors, and half the width of joists/beams.
- •Frimpong Lease described the property as the area above the second floor, including ceilings, floors, and joists/beams.
- •Extension works were carried out in 2001/2002.
- •Claimant's adverse possession and the Defendant's estoppel were also considered.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of lease agreements to determine the extent of demised premises.
Common law principles of lease interpretation
Estoppel and unconscionability in relation to adverse possession.
Common law principles of estoppel
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 1 (relevant to statutory tenancies).
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
Outcomes
Attic space was excluded from the Claimant's Lease.
The lease's wording, focusing on the second floor and attached joists/beams, excluded the attic space above.
Attic space was included in the Frimpong Lease.
The lease's description as 'above the second floor' and 1982 plans indicated its inclusion.
Defendant estopped from denying Claimant's possession of the attic space during the term of the Claimant's Lease.
The Claimant's actions were undertaken as a tenant, and it would be unconscionable for the Defendant to challenge possession during the lease term.
Estoppel ceases upon the termination of the Claimant's Lease.
The estoppel only applies while the Claimant remains a tenant under the existing lease.
The freeholder's rights were not addressed in the judgment.
The freeholder was not a party to the action.
Similar Cases
S Franses Limited & Anor v Block 6 Ashley Gardens Roof Gardens Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2880 (Ch)
Cyntra Properties Limited v Julie Gillborn & Anor
[2023] EWHC 759 (Ch)
Charles Hunt (Holdings) Limited v 77-82 Bridle Close Freehold Limited
[2023] UKUT 32 (LC)
Crisplane Limited v Plymouth Community Homes Limited
[2024] UKUT 15 (LC)