This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

BCL Law Notes Commercial Remedies BCL Notes

Ministry Of Defence V. Ashman Notes

Updated Ministry Of Defence V. Ashman Notes

Commercial Remedies BCL Notes

Commercial Remedies BCL

Approximately 497 pages

These are detailed case summaries (excerpts from cases - not paraphrased) I made during the Oxford BCL for the Commercial Remedies course....

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Ministry of Defence v. Ashman

Facts

The second defendant was at all material times a Flight Sergeant in the Royal Air Force and the first defendant was his wife. After they separated she stayed on in the married quarters which they had occupied together. The issue raised by this appeal is the way in which, in such a situation, mesne profits should be calculated. Should they be calculated by reference to the market rent, by reference to the subsidised rent paid by the serviceman so long as he and his family remained in lawful occupation or in some other way?

The property owned by the Ministry of Defence was at 15 Perch Meadow, Halton, about half a mile from RAF Halton. On going into occupation in June 1989, the second defendant signed the certificate by which he acknowledged, firstly, that he was entitled to occupy the property only so long as he remained a serving member of the Royal Air Force, living with his spouse. Secondly, that he would be required to remove his family from the accommodation if he ceased to live with his spouse.

On March 14, 1991, Mrs. Ashman and her husband were given the appropriate notice to vacate the accommodation by May 16, 1991; that notice being given by Mr. Ashman's Commanding Officer in accordance with the certificate which he, the second defendant, had co-signed. The first defendant and the two children did not vacate because they had nowhere to go.

On May 17, 1991, the day after possession should have been given pursuant to the Commanding Officer's notice, a new seven day notice was served on Mrs. Ashman alone. In this notice the Ministry for the first time asserted the right to claim damages for trespass at 108.93 per week. By then Mrs. Ashman had written to the local authority seeking alternative accommodation, but she had no priority. On September 30, 1991, the Ministry commenced these proceedings seeking possession and mesne profits from March 14, 1991, at 108.93 per weeks plus interest.

Holding

Kennedy LJ

But where, as in the present case, the property is not normally let on the open market, and the trespasser only remains in possession because she is in no position to move anywhere else, it seems to me that more assistance as to the proper value to Mrs. Ashman of the use of the property might be gained by looking at what she would have had to pay for suitable local authority accommodation, had any been available, than by focusing on evidence given on behalf of the Ministry as to market rent.

As Mr. Huskinson in the course of his submissions pointed out, if an elderly widow living alone were to hold over possession of a mansion whilst attempting to arrange accommodation more suited to her needs, the Court might conclude that the value to her of the use of the mansion was less than its rented value on the open market.

Accordingly I would allow the appeal and remit the matter to the County Court Judge so that he may decide what was in that relevant period the value to Mrs. Ashman of the use of the property. For the purposes of that hearing Mrs. Ashman might be wise to obtain from the local authority information as to what rent she would have had to pay for three bedroom accommodation for the period from May 16, 1991, to April 4, 1992, had such accommodation been available.

Defendant could have obtained alternate accommodation only if the local authority issued eviction order

Lastly, I must emphasise that the circumstances of this case are unusual. Clearly the quartering charge was well below the open market rent. But from an early stage both the first and second defendant made it clear to the Ministry they would be willing to accept for Mrs. Ashman local authority accommodation which accommodation she was only likely to be offered if the Ministry obtained an eviction order against her as in the end they did. So the Ministry knew how to mitigate what was, in effect, going to be its loss. It is reasonable in this case to measure the value to her of 15, Perch Meadows by reference to local authority rents just as in the Penarth Dock case it was appropriate to consider what the defendant would have had to pay for a berth if he had moved the pontoon elsewhere. In most cases the measure of damages to be paid by the trespasser in residential property will be calculated by reference to the ordinary letting value of property in which the defendant remained as happened in the Swordheath case.

Hoffmann LJ

That leaves only the question of how one values the benefit which Mr. and Mrs. Ashman received. In Swordheath Properties Ltd. v. Tabet [1979] 1 W.L.R. 285 Megaw L.J. said, β€œin the absence of anything special in the particular case” it will ordinarily be the rating value of the property in the open market.

Subjective Devaluation

In my judgment,...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.

More Commercial Remedies Bcl Samples