Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd & Ors v Danovo Ltd
August 11, 2004
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BLACKBURNE
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
August 11, 2004
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This High Court application arises from a landlord–tenant dispute over exterior signage at County Hall’s Belvedere Road entrance. Shirayama, the building’s effective owner, and Cadogan (the intermediate underlessee) permitted Danovo, operator of the Saatchi Gallery, to install two prominent "Saatchi Gallery" signs under a February 2003 letter of licence alongside a deed clause (9.2) requiring consent that is not unreasonably withheld. Shirayama later served 28-day notices and sought to replace the signs with "Main Entrance" signage, asserting building-wide access and branding needs. Mr Justice Blackburne found Danovo had a good arguable case that consent could not be withdrawn without good reason, that the November 10 notice was waived, and that the April 6 notice was highly questionable. On balance of convenience, the court rejected Danovo’s demand to keep both signs and imposed an interim arrangement: one sign may be removed (and replaced with a "Main Entrance" sign), while the remaining Saatchi sign must stay until trial or further order.
Mr Justice Blackburne:
Introduction
1. This is another chapter in the dispute between the owners of the former County Hall (also now known as the Riverside building) on the south bank of the Thames opposite the Palace of Westminster and the tenant of a part of the first floor. The first five claimants, between whom it is not necessary to distinguish and to whom I shall refer collectively as Shirayama, are the owners of a 999-year lease (which commenced on 29 October 1993) of the building (as I shall refer to it), its immediate curtilage and a small part of the adjoining Jubilee Gardens. By an underlease dated 8 January 2002, Shirayama granted a 50-year lease to the sixth claimant (Cadogan) of a part of the first floor of the building. By a sub-underlease dated 6 February 2003, Cadogan granted the defendant (Danovo) a 20-year five-month term from 1 January 2003 of a part of its underleasehold interest in the building. Danovo runs the well-known Saatchi Gallery from the premises leased to it by Cadogan. It has done so since 17 April 2003.
2. There are a number of disputes between Shirayama and Cadogan on the one hand and Danovo on the other over the latter’s occupation of the building. These disputes have given rise to the present claim issued on 17 September 2003 and to a counterclaim by Danovo. The claimants complain of the continued use by Danovo of Room 157 on the first floor (outside Danovo’s demise), the display by it of signage on part of Shirayama’s interest outside the building and of works of art in parts of the building outside Danovo’s demise, and over the activities of security personnel employed by Danovo. The claimants between them seek injunctive relief, damages and possession of Room 157. There are also separate proceedings on foot by Cadogan claiming forfeiture of Danovo’s sub-underlease, Danovo resists all of the claimants’ claims and, in its turn, complains of the claimants” conduct in extending the opening hours to the public of certain lobby and ambulatory areas in the building, interfering with Danovo’s security personnel, purporting to terminate its use of Room 157, attempting to interfere with its exterior signage and the placing by it within the building (but outside its demise) of various works of art and its use of a particular corridor. It makes complaints, some against Cadogan and some against Shirayama and Cadogan collectively, concerning lighting in the lobby and ambulatory areas in the building, the testing of fire alarm