Chedington Events Limited v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake & Anor

Mesne profits for trespass to land are ordinarily assessed by reference to the property’s ordinary letting value. The claimant need not prove that it would have let the property or suffered an equivalent actual loss. The value of the trespasser’s benefit is the objective value of the wrongful use.

An alternative property may be relevant to causation of loss, but only if the defendant proves that it would have occupied that property and thereby vacated the trespassed premises. A parent company’s conduct cannot ordinarily be treated as conduct of its subsidiary. Separate legal personality remains decisive unless a recognised legal basis for attribution is established.

The claimant sought mesne profits for the defendants’ continued occupation of a house and equestrian arena after termination of their licences. Liability and possession had been determined in an earlier judgment, [2022] EWHC 365 (Ch), and permission to appeal had been refused. Quantum was tried separately.

The principal issues were the date on which possession of the house was given up, the ordinary letting value of the house and arena, whether the defendants would have moved to an adjacent cottage if settlement offers had been accepted, whether that issue affected causation, and the appropriate award of interest.

1. Mesne profits. The defendants were liable for mesne profits measured by the ordinary letting value of the house and arena. The relevant measure is the objective value of the wrongful use, reflecting the user principle. It is unnecessary to prove that the claimant would actually have let the premises or made an actual profit. The approach in Swordheath Properties v Tabet and Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett was applied. The contractual damages discussion in Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd was distinguished as principally concerned with breach of contract.
2. Letting value. The house was valued at £3,000 per month until 9 November 2021 and £3,750 per month thereafter, after a 25% discount for disturbance from the wedding venue. The arena was valued as an equestrian facility, not merely as storage. Planning considerations were irrelevant, including because enforcement was statute-barred under Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 171B. A modest allowance was made for the absence of turnout space.
3. Alternative accommodation and causation. Although trespass liability was strict and had already been decided, the defendants could argue at the quantum stage that their trespass had not caused the claimed loss. That argument failed. The defendants had not proved that they would have vacated both the house and arena. Their conditional settlement offers did not require acceptance as mitigation of the claimant’s loss.
4. Separate legal personality. The claimant’s parent company was a separate legal person. Its occupation of the cottage could not be relied upon to show that the claimant’s loss was caused by the claimant rather than by the defendants. Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd and Macaura v Northern Assurance Co Ltd were applied.
5. Outcome. Damages were assessed at £236,818.27. Interest was awarded at 3% from the accrual dates until 17 January 2019 and at 8% thereafter, including on the judgment debt.

This was a first-instance quantum judgment. Liability and possession had previously been determined by the same judge in [2022] EWHC 365 (Ch). Permission to appeal that decision was refused by the Court of Appeal on 7 April 2022.