Hunte v E Bottomley & Sons Ltd

A landlord’s power to regulate traffic under a right-of-way clause must be exercised reasonably and for traffic management. It does not authorise closing or obstructing the route, or requiring the tenant to turn back. Such a proviso cannot defeat a separate covenant for quiet enjoyment. Where premises are let for a café business, substantial obstruction to customer access may constitute derogation from grant and breach of quiet enjoyment. A counterclaim may be set off against damages where evidence shows that a dishonoured cheque forms part of the same rent and electricity arrears. A pleading that a lease has been rendered worthless may sufficiently raise a claim for its value, subject to proportionate procedural management.

The appeal arose from a county court judgment awarding the claimant £5,296, inclusive of interest, for breaches arising from the obstruction and closure of access to leased café premises. The county court dismissed the counterclaim for a dishonoured cheque, rent and electricity charges. The appeal challenged the finding of breach, the treatment of the counterclaim, and the award relating to the value of the remaining lease. The central issues were whether the landlord’s contractual power to direct traffic permitted the obstruction, whether the counterclaim had been properly set off, and whether the lease-value claim was sufficiently pleaded.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The county court was entitled to find that the wall and closure of the roadway substantially derogated from the grant and breached the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The premises were let as a café, so access for customers was an important aspect of the letting.
2. The right-of-way proviso permitted regulations concerning the direction of traffic, but its proper scope was limited. At most, it allowed the landlord to prescribe circulation in one direction or the other. It did not permit the landlord to block the roadway, prevent passage, or require users to travel part-way and return. The proviso could not override the separate covenant for quiet enjoyment.
3. Arden LJ additionally held that the regulations had to be reasonable and that the landlord’s changes were not traffic regulations because they were made to divide the site. A substantial solid wall was not a reasonable regulation for directing traffic. These conclusions supported the finding of substantial interference with quiet enjoyment.
4. The judge was entitled to treat the dishonoured cheque as part of the larger rent and electricity arrears. The evidence and invoice showed that the cheque covered sums included in the counterclaim. The counterclaim was therefore properly set off against the damages.
5. The pleading that the remaining lease had been rendered worthless sufficiently identified a claim relating to the lease’s value. The procedural challenge to the £2,000 assessment did not justify permission to appeal, particularly given the limited evidence and the disproportionate cost and delay of reopening the matter.
6. Arden LJ made obiter observations that appeal bundles and skeleton arguments in cases involving land should include and clearly identify a complete, legible plan, map, diagram or photograph showing all material features.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the county court judgment dismissed.
2. County Court: Judgment for the claimant in the sum of £5,296, inclusive of interest; counterclaim dismissed.