A recent Court of Appeal case shows that mediation can often be a more beneficial way of resolving disputes than what Lord Justice Jackson referred to as ‘full blooded adversarial litigation’.
The dispute in question arose between the leaseholders of two upmarket apartments in Eaton Mansions, London. Hameed and Inam Faidi were the occupants and leaseholders of Flat 6. They, in common with all other leaseholders in the block, had covenanted in their lease to observe all regulations imposed for the management of the block. One of these regulations was that the floors of each flat should be covered with carpet and underlay, except for the kitchen and bathrooms.
Flat 8 was directly above the flat occupied by the Faidis, who complained that they were disturbed by noise from the tenants that would not have arisen had the floors of the flat been carpeted in accordance with the lease provisions. The Faidis sought an injunction to require the leaseholders of Flat 8 to lay carpet over the expensive oak flooring and underfloor heating which had been installed in the apartment.
The leaseholders of Flat 8 were able to show that the landlord of the block had granted consent for various works to be carried out, including installation of the floors. They argued that the grant of this licence waived the obligation to carpet the rooms, particularly as this was incompatible with installing wooden floors and underfloor heating. The Court of first instance accepted this argument, as did the Court of Appeal.
Lord Justice Jackson pointed out that in bringing the case to court the outcome was always going to be an ‘all or nothing’ situation. Either the court would hold that the requirement to lay carpets had been waived by the licence or it would not, whereas in this case a compromise between the parties (for example partial carpeting) might have been the best outcome. If the parties had chosen mediation, a compromise might have been reached and much of the cost of the litigation, which amounted to more than £140,000, could have been saved.
Disputes between neighbours can become acrimonious unless handled with care. We can help you reach an amicable solution, without court proceedings being brought unless it is absolutely necessary.
|Mortgage Debt Not Regulated by Consumer Credit Act 1974|
|National Trust Membership Rules Out Judge in Planning Dispute|
|Court Provides Resolution to Potential Problem|
|Careless Talk Costs Land|
|Reasonable Depends on Circumstances|
|The Perils of Incautious Auction Purchase|
|Non-Compliance With Court Order Leads to Fine|
|Inaccurate Sale Particulars Lead to Repayment Order|
|Squatters - What to Do Now|
|Council Not Liable for Tree Roots Subsidence|
|Accessing Your Own Land|
|Buying Abroad - Considerations|
|Buying a House and Consumer Protection|
|Current Laws on Electrical Work|
|Fact Sheet - Disclosure to Mortgage Lenders of Incentives for Buyers|
|Guide to Law on Squatting in Residential Premises|
|How Do We Set Up a Commonhold?|
|Leaseholders' Right to Manage|
|Mortgage Exit Administration Charges - Consumer Redress|
|Phone Masts - The Law and Practice|
|Planning Law Basics - New Developments|
|Selling Your House and Land: Tax Tips|
|Selling Your Property at Auction|
|Tenants' Right to Buy|
|The Duties of Mortgage Lenders|
|Timeshares - Good or Bad?|
|What is a Tenant's Improvement?|
|When Can I Access My Neighbour's Land?|
|Who Can Go Where?|