This websites use cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. For more details about cookies and how to manage them, see our cookie policy.

Cases James Hanham

Hicks v 89 Holland Park Management Limited [2021] EWHC 930 (Comm)

Judgment Date: 29 Apr 2021

John McGhee QC and James Hanham acted for the successful Covenantee and were instructed by Clive Chalkley and Charlotte Weeks of Gowling WLG.

View case

Bermondsey Exchange Freeholders Ltd v Ninos Koumetto (As Trustee In Bankruptcy Of Kevin Geoghehan Conway) (2018)

Judgment Date: 01 May 2018

Geoghehan Conway) (2018) Summary A long leaseholder had breached the terms of his lease by underletting his flat for holiday lets via online platforms such as Airbnb. An injunction preventing such use was upheld.

View case

Zia Shalimoun, Infina Fund Ltd v Mining Technologies International Inc (2011)

Judgment Date: 13 Dec 2011

It was not an abuse of process for a company to rely in Canadian proceedings on documents disclosed pursuant to Bankers Trust orders made in the United Kingdom where it was not obvious at the time that proceedings would be commenced in Canada. Where the company had applied for a Bankers Trust order on the express basis that proceedings were likely, the court in making the order had implicitly given permission to use the documents in those proceedings.

View case

Eaton Mansions (Westminster) Ltd v Stinger Compania De Inversion SA (2011)

Judgment Date: 18 May 2011

A judge had been entitled to find that a tenant had no reasonable prospect of defending a claim for trespass made by a head lessee concerning the tenant's installation of air-conditioning units on the roof of a block of flats. The freeholder and head lessee would not have consented to the installation of the units and the tenant had no right under the lease to place anything on the roof.

View case

Members
James Hanham

Practice areas
Real Estate

Aribisala v St James’ Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd (2008)

Judgment Date: 14 Mar 2008

The fact that a vendor of a property had not proved any loss where the purchaser had failed to complete could not, on its own, amount to a sufficient ground for ordering the return of a deposit under the Law of Property Act 1925 s.49(2), but the economic impact on the vendor was a factor that the court could take into account in deciding whether the case was an exceptional one so that it should exercise its discretion to order repayment.

View case

Members
James Hanham

Practice areas
Real Estate