Johnson v Luxcool Ltd & Ors

A claimant seeking damages for dispossession and trespass must establish the relevant proprietary, possessory or tenancy right. A document that purports to create a six-year tenancy, but is not made by deed, is ineffective under section 54 of the Law of Property Act 1925. A person occupying land without a tenancy is, at most, a bare licensee or trespasser and cannot recover for damage to structures or fittings in which she has no right to occupy or place them. Liability for damage to goods requires evidence connecting the defendant’s act to identifiable damage.

The claimant occupied parts of premises comprising land held under four separate titles and alleged that she had been a weekly tenant. She claimed that the defendants had unlawfully dispossessed her, removed goods, damaged structures and fittings, and caused consequential financial loss.

The first defendant and the third defendant denied that she had any tenancy and contended that the third defendant’s conduct had been undertaken on behalf of the company and was not wrongful. The second defendant’s claims were compromised before trial. The principal issues were whether the claimant had any tenancy, what acts the defendants had caused, and whether loss and damage had been proved.

1. Tenancy. The claimant failed to prove that she had any tenancy of any part of the relevant properties. The alleged agreement was unreliable and unexplained, did not clearly cover all the occupied land, and could not create a six-year term because it was not made by deed. Section 54 of the Law of Property Act 1925 therefore rendered it ineffective to create such a term (paras [11]–[28]).
2. The claimant’s occupation was, at best, that of a bare licensee, and otherwise that of a trespasser. Her claims dependent on a tenancy therefore failed. The court also noted the possible relevance of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 if a tenancy had otherwise been established, but no tenancy was proved (para [15]).
3. Acts relied upon as trespass. The third defendant had caused roofs to be removed from structures situated on land belonging to the first defendant. In principle, exposing goods beneath those roofs to damage could amount to a trespass to the goods. However, the claimant produced no satisfactory evidence that any of the pleaded goods had been damaged by that act. The evidence did not establish where the goods were located or connect their alleged damage with the roof removal (paras [34]–[45]).
4. The claimant could not recover damages for harm to structures or fittings because she had no right to occupy the structures or place fittings in them. Evidence of expenditure, replacement value and loss of income was also inadequate and unreliable. The court rejected the purported construction invoices and the unsupported income figures (paras [46]–[62]).
5. Disposition. All claims against the first and third defendants failed. The action was dismissed (para [63]).