Century Projects Ltd v Almacantar (Centre Point) & Ors

On an application for an interlocutory injunction concerning repair works by a landlord, the landlord’s repairing rights and the tenant’s entitlement to quiet enjoyment must be construed as coexisting on a basis of parity. The landlord may choose how to carry out necessary repairs, but must act reasonably and consider their impact on the tenant. The tenant is not entitled to insist on the method causing the least possible interference.

At the interim stage, the court should avoid resolving disputed technical evidence or difficult questions of construction. It must assess the adequacy of damages, the risk of uncompensatable disadvantage, the relative strength of the parties’ cases where appropriate, and the practical effect of the injunction. An order which would effectively require a landlord to adopt a particular repair method is a significant factor against granting relief.

The claimant operated a restaurant, bar and events business in the upper floors of Centre Point Tower under a long lease. The defendants, as landlords, were obliged to repair the tower’s external concrete façade and proposed to use traditional scaffolding enclosed in sheeting. The claimant contended that this would obstruct its views and damage its business, and that suspended cradles were a viable and less disruptive alternative.

The claimant sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the scaffolding works or requiring agreement of a method minimising disruption. The issues were whether there was a serious question as to breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment or the obligation not to derogate from the grant, and whether the balance of convenience favoured interim relief.

1. Serious issue. The provisions of the Lease relied on by the defendants did not provide a conclusive answer. The construction of the relevant rights and reservations was sufficiently difficult to be unsuitable for final determination on the interlocutory application. There was a serious question whether the proposed works could breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment or the implied obligation not to derogate from the grant.
2. Relationship between repairing rights and quiet enjoyment. Necessary repairs are a matter for the landlord, who ordinarily has the prima facie right to decide what work is required, when and how it is carried out, and whom to employ. That right is not unrestricted. The landlord must act reasonably and have regard to the impact of its choices on an occupying tenant. Conversely, the tenant cannot require the method causing the least possible interference.
3. Evidence and interim assessment. The defendants had obtained consistent advice from experienced contractors, civil engineers and structural engineers that scaffolding was appropriate and cradles were impractical. The court could not resolve the technical dispute at the interim stage, but the evidence made the claimant’s case substantially difficult.
4. Balance of convenience. The claimant faced a serious risk of damage to its business which might not be fully compensated by damages. The defendants, however, faced a substantial risk of financial loss from delay, and the claimant had not shown that it could meet the cross-undertaking. The disadvantages were not evenly balanced. The defendants’ case was also disproportionately stronger on the evidence.
5. The injunction sought would effectively compel the landlords to use cradles or allow the claimant to dictate the repair method. The court was very doubtful that such relief would be granted even after trial. The application was dismissed, leaving the defendants to proceed with the works as advised.