Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 17 (Apr)
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Ward, Latham and Lloyd LJJ

Representation Grant Crawford (instructed by Wismayers) for the claimant.
  Timothy Higginson (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 3 April 2006

Catchwords

Contract - Compromise - Construction - Landlord and tenant compromising forfeiture proceedings in respect of unpaid service charges - Consent order providing that specified sum could not be recovered from tenant - Landlord, as management company, levying contribution to recovery fund under articles of association from tenant as shareholder - Whether levy precluded by compromise agreement.

The Case

Where a consent order settled forfeiture proceedings between a tenant and a landlord, in relation to a dispute concerning service charges, on the terms that a specified sum could not be recovered from the tenant, it did, on its true construction, preclude the landlord from recovering that sum as a management company from its tenant as a shareholder, pursuant the articles of association. Although there was some overlap between the parties' relationship as landlord and tenant, and their relationship as company and shareholder, there were real differences between the two aspects of the relationship. The consent order did not deal with both aspects. It merely settled the dispute between the parties as landlord and tenant.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.