Axnoller Events Ltd v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake & Anor

A physical address for service is required under CPR r 6.23 where a litigant in person resides or carries on business in the United Kingdom. An email address does not satisfy that requirement. The court may withhold one party’s address from another party, but only where a sufficiently strong countervailing factor justifies doing so.

Indemnity costs require conduct or circumstances taking the case out of the norm. Mesne profits for trespass are damages, ordinarily assessed by reference to the ordinary letting value of the property and the benefit obtained by the trespasser, rather than the claimant’s actual loss or profit. An interim payment may be ordered where the claimant has judgment for damages to be assessed, provided the payment is no more than a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment.

This was a consequential judgment following decisions in related possession and eviction proceedings. The court had previously held that Axnoller Events Ltd was entitled to possession of West Axnoller Farm and that the Brakes’ eviction claim concerning West Axnoller Cottage failed.

The issues were whether the Brakes had to provide a physical address for service, whether the costs of the possession claim should be assessed on the indemnity basis, and whether Axnoller Events Ltd should receive an interim payment on account of mesne profits. The court also considered the evidential requirements for valuing those profits at an interlocutory stage.

1. Address for service. CPR r 6.23 requires a litigant in person to give an address within the United Kingdom at which the party resides or carries on business. An email address cannot satisfy that requirement because a person cannot reside or carry on business at an email address. The court has power under CPR rr 5.4B–5.4D to control disclosure of information held in court records, including withholding an address from another party, but a sufficiently strong countervailing factor is required. Mere reluctance to disclose the address was insufficient. The Brakes were ordered to provide a compliant physical address within seven days.
2. Indemnity costs. The standard basis is the norm. Indemnity costs require conduct or circumstances taking the case out of the norm. The Brakes had introduced a substantial late allegation which the court found fabricated, given deliberate false evidence, allowed a district judge to be misled on an important matter, conducted a one-sided press campaign, and prolonged enforcement after judgment. Taken cumulatively, that conduct justified indemnity costs.
3. Mesne profits. Mesne profits are damages for trespass. They are ordinarily measured by the ordinary letting value of the premises and the benefit obtained by the trespasser, without proof that the landowner could or would have let the property or made an actual profit. A landowner is generally not required to mitigate by offering another property to the trespasser. The court therefore assessed the likely letting value of the House and arena, applied a cautious discount, and ordered payment of £225,000 on account.
4. Interim payment and evidence. CPR r 25.7(1)(b) was satisfied because judgment had been obtained for damages to be assessed. The court therefore did not need to decide whether CPR r 25.7(1)(c) was also satisfied. Any interim payment had to be no more than a reasonable proportion of the likely final judgment. Informal expert valuation reports could be admitted for the interlocutory application without prior formal permission under CPR Part 35, although the court retained control over their admission.

The judgment records related proceedings and applications in the same litigation, including stays and permission applications in the Court of Appeal. This judgment itself determined consequential matters in the High Court.