A WINE tycoon has been sued by his neighbour for not placing up CURTAINS in his posh £3.2million flat.
Meghdad Farrokhzad lashed out at Rollo Gabb, head of South African winery Journey's Finish, over claims the wine importer breached guidelines about what sort of curtains and flooring coverings he might have in his Kensington flat.
When Mr Gabb, whose celebrated Stellenbosch area wines are carried by Waitrose, M&S and Sainsbury's, purchased the luxurious flat in 2007, he agreed to observe the lease - which places limits on how he might do the property out.
The principles mentioned that the luxurious three-storey flat needed to be carpeted and "correctly curtained in a method applicable to a high-class personal residence".
However Mr Farrokhzad - who acquired the freehold of the constructing on the identical time he purchased an artwork gallery beneath Mr Gabb's flat in 2020 - complained that his new neighbour had damaged the curtain rule.
He launched a bid to strip Mr Gabb, 50, of his lease on the flat by suing him in a tribunal, however misplaced his case in April final yr.
However he's now himself being sued by Mr Gabb - who claims the curtain complaints had been a part of a "marketing campaign" to thwart his makes an attempt to promote his condo.
Mr Gabb says that Mr Farrokhzad, 41, has behaved "unreasonably" in blocking his makes an attempt to promote the flat - inflicting one multimillion-pound sale to fall via and placing one other in danger.
He now needs a decide to pressure the businessman to approve the sale of the flat.
Consent to switch the lease can't be "unreasonably" withheld and - Mr Gabb claims his neighbour is doing simply that in a bid to make the flat "unsellable."
However Mr Farrokhzad denies he has executed something "unreasonable" and would the truth is be completely satisfied for him to go away.
Mr Gabb, a part of a household wine dynasty that based excessive road booze manufacturers together with Kumala, has the luxurious flat, which contains the primary, second and third flooring of the constructing and boasts its personal roof terrace.
Mr Farrokhzad purchased the freehold and the gallery in 2020 and the friction between the pair first emerged when Mr Gabb objected to his new neighbour's software to show the bottom flooring unit right into a licensed sushi bar.
The unhealthy blood elevated when Mr Farrokhzad introduced Mr Gabb earlier than a tribunal decide.
He claimed his neighbour ought to lose his proper to the lease on account of "an absence of cloth curtains" - as a result of the wine boss put up wood shutters on a few of his home windows.
Mr Farrokhzad additionally mentioned that the flat must be absolutely fitted with carpets, apart from the kitchen and toilet - as per the covenants.
The tribunal finally dismissed the case after listening to that Mr Gabb had bought permission to place within the shutters and laborious flooring from the earlier freeholder.
However the struggle between the 2 males continued - with Mr Gabb this week dragging his neighbour to the Excessive Court docket and blaming his "unreasonable" behaviour for a multimillion-pound sale of the flat falling via.
Mr Gabb's barrister Joanne Wicks QC informed Choose Simon Gleeson: "The marketing campaign in opposition to Mr Gabb commenced with a solicitors’ letter despatched on Christmas Eve 2020 acquired out of the blue, contending that (he) was in breach of the covenants of the lease by advantage of putting in wooden flooring (and) failing to 'correctly curtain' home windows.
"Mr Gabb has been looking for to promote the flat for the reason that autumn of 2020 however, apparently motivated by a want to buy the flat himself and/or anger at Mr Gabb's objections to the grant of a late-night alcohol licence, Mr Farrokhzad has been decided to do all he can to thwart a sale."
BLIND JUSTICE
She mentioned that "repeated purposes for consent" to assign the leasehold to a brand new proprietor had been met by Mr Farrokhzad "with a combination of spurious claims of breach of covenant and threatened forfeiture; the spectre of unspecified 'main works' to which the lessee should contribute; unreasonable delay; (and) the imposition of unreasonable situations."
She claimed that in a bid to make life troublesome for his neighbour Mr Farrokhzad had insisted on informing potential patrons that they might be responsible for all or a part of an impending £388,000 invoice for repairs to the "frequent components" of the constructing.
It had left Mr Gabb vulnerable to dropping a suggestion presently on the desk from a rich purchaser eager on the condo, she claimed.
"He fairly fears that Mr Farrokhzad's behaviour is rendering the flat utterly unsellable," she concluded, asking the decide for damages and an injunction to pressure the businessman to log off on the sale of the flat.
Andrew Butler QC, for Mr Farrokhzad, denied that he had behaved unreasonably.
He particularly denied inflicting the lack of any supply to purchase the flat via unreasonable behaviour and additional insisted that Mr Gabb had not suffered any monetary loss on account of him.
Denying there was any want for damages or an injunction, the barrister informed the decide: "Whereas Mr Gabb seems to interpret Mr Farrokhzad's actions as a concerted try to stop him from assigning the lease, nothing may very well be farther from the reality.
"Mr Farrokhzad is kind of content material for an project to happen and certainly recognises that his relationship with Mr Gabb has grow to be strained."
In relation to the works on the frequent components of the constructing he informed the decide: "The anticipated value of works is £388,237.61.
"This can both be the tenant’s sole accountability or the events’ joint accountability. The tenant has traditionally borne 60% of the latter prices.
"Mr Farrokhzad has no specific want to maintain Mr Gabb as his tenant.
"He merely needs to make sure that his personal pursuits are protected, and particularly that an incoming tenant shouldn't be taken without warning by the price of works which is perhaps required and capable of meet that value".
He mentioned Mr Farrokhzad was ready to permit the lease to be transferred on sure situations, together with that the customer supplies a reference to point out that they may be capable to meet the price of the works.
However Mr Gabb's barrister informed the decide he's baffled about what he or a purchaser could be paying in the direction of.
The decide has now reserved his ruling on the case after a two-day listening to, to be given at a later date.
Post a Comment