|
|
Substantial interference
Electricity
The claimants were tenants at a holiday village in Cornwall. Under their leases they had the benefit of an easementto run water and electricity and other services through pipes, sewers, drains, cable, lines and wires which are not situate upon any part of the said estate or which may hereinafter be substituted therefore. Initially they had uninterrupted to access to electricity from a substation on adjoining land. L paid for the electricity and was reimbursed by the tenants by means of coin-operated meters. Subsequently L and the tenants came to an arrangement whereby the coin-operated meters were replaced by card-operated meters that used pre-purchased tokens. In 2000 there was a dispute over an increase in electricity charges during which L initially stopped selling tokens. After a period L started selling them again but only for one-hour per day, and after a further period for only 15 minutes per day. Ts brought a claim seeking various remedies including damages.
Held: This was a substantial interference with the tenants rights and L was ordered to sell tokens on site between 9am and 5pm every day. Ls argument that this wrongly imposed a positive obligation, which is not allowed in the case of an easement, was rejected. Prior to the agreement to change to card-operated meters the tenants had had uninterrupted access to electricity. The agreement to change to a different method of re-imbursement could only be understood on the basis that the tokens would be made reasonably available to the tenants on reasonable terms and at reasonable times and places. Nominal damages for breach of contract were also awarded but aggravated damages were not appropriate.
Cardwell v Walker [2003] EWHC 3117(Ch); [2004] 04 EG 108 (CS), Neuberger J.
Back to top
|
|
|