Background
AirX Jet Support Limited and AirX Charter Limited occupied the eastern half of an aircraft hangar at Stansted Airport for their private-jet and charter operations. They alleged that London Jet Centre and Diamond Hangar were obliged to maintain the roof and provide heating, but had allowed substantial water ingress and stopped supplying gas heating. The defendants disputed the claimants’ precise occupational status and the scope of their obligations, while accepting that an implied term requiring the premises to be reasonably fit for purpose could in principle extend to roof repairs and adequate heating.
The claimants sought interim mandatory injunctions requiring the defendants to restore heating and make the roof watertight and safe. An earlier judge ordered the defendants to use their best endeavours to restore heating, but postponed the roof application pending expert evidence. The experts agreed that the approximately 37-year-old roof had exceeded its anticipated lifespan, yet none concluded that it was not currently watertight or weatherproof. Proposed temporary works ranged from approximately £128,000 to between £512,000 and £1.2 million, and carried significant qualifications about their practicality and effectiveness.
The Court’s Holding
His Honour Judge Richard Carter, sitting as a High Court judge, dismissed the application for an interim mandatory injunction requiring roof repairs. He agreed that there was a serious issue to be tried concerning the defendants’ repairing obligations, but found that the new evidence no longer established that damages would be inadequate. The claimed losses attributable specifically to roof leaks were poorly evidenced, the regulatory evidence concerned temperature rather than water ingress, and the claimants had generally managed leaks through measures such as cordoning off and cleaning affected areas.
The balance of convenience also favored refusing relief. The court lacked a high degree of assurance that the claimants would establish at trial a right requiring the defendants to keep the roof watertight and weatherproof. Ordering costly temporary works would impose substantial expenditure before trial even though the experts could not say the roof was presently non-watertight, the works might not prevent further ingress or catastrophic failure, and their cost and scope remained uncertain. That prejudice outweighed the risk of further sporadic leaks, which the evidence did not show would cause major losses, regulatory consequences, or an unmanageable danger to staff.
Key Takeaways
- A serious issue to be tried does not by itself justify an interim mandatory injunction requiring extensive positive work.
- The court assesses the practical consequences of granting or refusing relief and chooses the course carrying the lower risk of irremediable injustice.
- Uncertain liability, inconclusive expert evidence, and disproportionate repair costs weighed against compelling temporary roof works before trial.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding evidential burden on an occupier seeking major repairs through interim mandatory relief. Even where a roof is beyond its expected lifespan and has leaked during severe weather, an applicant must connect the alleged breach to clearly established harm and propose sufficiently certain, proportionate, and effective works.
It also confirms that a cross-undertaking in damages does not automatically eliminate prejudice to a respondent. The court may treat the need to fund substantial, potentially ineffective temporary work until the end of proceedings as irremediable prejudice when deciding where the balance of convenience lies.