Mandalia & Anor v Beaufort Dedicated No2 Ltd
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR GERARD McDERMOTT QC
Areas of Law
- Insurance Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for damages caused by tenants to the Claimants' property. The court found that while some damages were malicious and covered under the policy, the claim for theft was not upheld as the tenants had lawful access to the property. The Claimants were awarded £15,750.
Judgment
Gerard McDermott QC :
This is my Judgment in this case between the Claimants, who are and were, the owners of shop premises and the flats above at 287-289 Burnt Oak, Broadway, Middlesex, and the Defendant insurance company.
Those shop premises, at the time of the events which give rise to this claim, were divided into
(a) a takeaway restaurant called “Lick’N Chick’N” and
(b) a general grocery shop called United Cash and Carry.
The claim form reveals a claim which was initially put at £295,931.58 but which has since been revised downwards.
The claim, essentially, is about the extent of the insurance coverage that the Claimants had under a commercial combined insurance policy issued by the Defendant or rather by Evergreen Underwriting Services which is now Beaufort Underwriting Services and the extent to which that cover should respond to the claim made upon the same. The Defendant says that the real dispute arises because there is a misapprehension on the part of the Claimant as to the extent of the coverage and also the extent of losses that are payable under that cover.
Background
The Claimants bought the premises in the 1980’s and traded from the premises as “Mandalia Cash and Carry”. They had initially traded with the First Claimant’s brothers but ultimately the Claimants bought them out and they continued to run the business on their own from that time.
It seems that the business was quite successful and over the years they were able to buy first, one and then the other flat above the premises and to knock them through creating a home for themselves above the shop.
Unfortunately the Claimants have suffered from ill health (the details of this are set out at paragraph 11 of the Second Claimant’s first witness statement) and the running of the cash and carry business became too much for them. Initially they had intended to start a restaurant which they thought would require much less of their own manpower if they had reliable staff and on 24 th May 2004 they obtained planning permission to alter the use of the premises from retail to mixed use of retail and the sale of hot food and drink.
As their health continued to deteriorate they decided to market the shop lease instead.
On 3 rd May 2005 the Claimants enter into a 12 year lease of the premises with Mr Balasingam Kaskiran and Mrs Anthea Pirathavan. These became regarded by Mr and Mrs Mandalia as the “bad tenants”. These tenants split the premises into a fast food takeaway called