Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Short Version of the Case

Case Short Version

There is enough is this case to establish a liability in common law and in contract law as well as in the Landlords and Tenant’s Act law which is established within the terms of the two property leases for 104 & 106-108 Cromer Street, London, WC1H 9PB.

Further there is within this case an important matter of public interest that will need to be determined by this court and that is:

 “Can a landlord break the terms and conditions, of a building’s and liability insurance policy, this making a leaseholder, being the person who has suffered building damage and business interruption effectively and in other words left without any compensation at all, therefore completely, through no fault of their own, uninsured?”

This despite the leaseholder paying the landlord for insurance.

I am here to establish the case that has held my entire life up since 2004, when I first made an application to my landlord to pay me for the damage he suffered me, that was covered under the terms of our joint insurance that he breached and not I.

I want all the money owed to me to be totted up in a fair manner including interest and substantial damages paid to me forthwith and this case to be finally put to bed within the fair and established laws of this country.

I am not seeking revenge nor to smear any characters, who may have been involved in holding up the case. I am here to get my money back.

Number 1 Article in the Human Rights Act is the protection of property.

Number 6 Article in the Human Rights Act is the right to a fair trial.

From England to Europe, from America to Australia and the world over we have always held as sacred the protection of our property.

And England is held up in high regard throughout the world in chancery (i.e. money), that said and also the common persons right to be treated as equal in the eyes of the law.

So I Commence battle in proving my case:

1. Contract – In my contract also known as my “leases of two properties”, it is established that my landlord has to insure the properties. 
The insurance covers all risks at all times including, any repairs and consequential losses and liabilities resulting from damage. 
It is established that I pay my landlord to insure my property as is very common throughout the world. 
In contract the insurance is not written up and nor is it necessary to be spelled out, as a repairing instrument, it is just called insurance and it does cover repairs as one can read in the insurance policy. 
In the most important case in this country regarding a contract of building and liability insurance, the words, “to keep in repair ‘at all times’” those words were carefully deciphered. 
It is the most important precedent of a case called ‘British Telecommunications v Sun Life PLC’ and the outcome was that “to be kept in repair, at all times” meant quite literally “at all times”. 
These words are very important to the common man and woman, as it is about the ‘construction of words’ in a contract and what that means under normal terms and conditions that we all may find ourselves in from time to time, especially in property contracts.
Why it became so important as a leading authority case was that someone could sue, ‘from the moment of damage’, which is quite right and fair. 
So British Communications v Sun Life PLC is a good law. 
Liability is established from the moment of damage in common law, in contract law and in Landlords and Tenants law.
So to conclude my first point, as I had insurance for all risks, I was covered for repairs, damage and liability for damage or consequential losses including business interruption “at all times” thanks to the law of British Communications v Sun Life.

2. Bearing in mind I am right about that, lets look now at my contract. In my contract it says that under no circumstances should I do any act that would render the insurance invalid 
In the event of the Demises Premises or the building in which they are situate or any neighboring premises or any of them or any part thereof being destroyed or damaged by any of the Insured Risks and the insurance money under any policy of insurance effected thereon by the Landlord being by reason of any act neglect default or omission of the Tenant wholly or partially irrecoverable forthwith in every such case to pay to the Landlord on demand the cost of rebuilding and reinstating the building or buildings so destroyed or damaged such rebuilding works to be carried out by and in accordance with the requirements of the Landlord and the Tenant being allowed towards the expenses of so doing (upon such rebuilding and reinstatement being completed) the amount (if any) actually received by or on behalf of the Landlord (other than in respect of loss of rent) under any such insurance as aforesaid in respect of such destruction or damage
  or I will pay to the landlord the cost of rebuilding as if the insurance had been in place. However it says nothing in the contract a legally binding document also known as my lease, that the landlord should not do any act to invalidate the insurance.

“And a contract is a contract and I signed it never thinking once of a scenario where the landlord would invalidate the insurance.”

However luckily for me, two laws that this country made which, save me, in terms of what is fair in the eyes of the law.

a) Because my landlord in the contract has an expressed ‘contractual duty’ to insure, if he leaves me through his acts uninsured then he has not fulfilled his contractual duty to insure as I am now uninsured. And its not in my part of contract to insure with a reputable insurer, I only contractually have to pay him to insure and that is my side of the contract fulfilled. So I have done that and that’s not in dispute but he hasn’t insured me!! The why’s and wherefores, are utterly irrelevant, he has broken the contract with me and with them the insurers.

“So here is a landlord somewhat in a bad position, having broken both contracts and I still need to be paid.”

I therefore only need to prove I was covered for insurance “at all times” and that the landlord failed to insure me. He has broken my contract in law.

b) Other laws that assist me, are – How this country views property – and there has been much argument, considering it is the Number 1 Article in the Human Rights convention, “Protection of one’s Property”, regarding property leases, again, ie, contracts but we’ll use the word lease contract here to explain how the law is again in my favour regarding “workable” lease contracts. 
Here, I not only have a precedent, in law, in my favour, I must point out that additionally, this law went as far as the House of Lords to be properly established and to make law. So it is a hard one to argue with, since all the Lords had a lot to say about it, unless we are here today to change this, well-established law.
Lord Cross of Chelsea said: that a contract in the form of a lease should be “workable”. The word ‘workable’, like (being kept in repair) “at all times” as cited before, is the key to this law.
And I abbreviate here, 

“where a ‘contract’ or ‘agreement’ between a large landlord and tenant of ‘separate’ occupation to the larger dwelling, does not embody ‘the complete agreement’ between the parties the court maybe willing to supplement the written document by implying terms, placing obligations on one party or another.”
Lord Wilberforce, said, 

“the test was no more or no less than that of necessity.”
Lord Cross then said that the court, and I quote; 

“must be able to say that the insertion of the term is necessary to give” as he put it, “business efficacy (meaning workable business) to the contract and that ‘if it’s absence’ had been pointed out at the time both parties- assuming them to be reasonable men- would have agreed without hesitation, to it’s insertion”

“business efficacy to the contract and that ‘if it’s absence’ had been pointed out at the time both parties- assuming them to be reasonable men - would have agreed without hesitation to it’s insertion”

And herein lies my case.

When signing that contract it said in clause 5(22) of my lease, that I must not under any circumstances break the insurance or I pay the landlord as if insurance was in place.

Assuming the landlord to be a reasonable man, he would have agreed had either of us spotted it’s lack of insertion in the lease or imagined the scenario of him breaching the insurance, we would both have reasonably agreed that he pay me as if the insurance had been in place, adding in then – vice versa – to clause 5(22).

It is therefore a duty and ‘necessity’ in all the laws I quoted that the courts “without hesitation” and with the power vested in it and as stated by Lord Cross ‘court maybe willing to supplement the written document by implying terms, placing obligations on one party or another’ the courts must simply add in the implied term, that the landlord cannot break the tenants insurance.

No comments:

Post a Comment