AirX Jet Support v London Jet Centre: Interim injunctions for landlord repair obligations

The claimants, AirX Jet Support Limited and AirX Charter Limited, operated their private jet airline business from the east half of a diamond-shaped hangar, paying substantial sums exceeding £600,000 annually in rent and service charges. The relationship between the parties was complicated by the absence of a single comprehensive agreement governing occupation. Instead, multiple overlapping documents existed: a Hangar Services Contract from 2019, a Hangar Parking/Handling Agreement from 2020, and an unexecuted draft lease.

The claimants advanced seven alternative bases for their occupation, ranging from an equitable lease to a tenancy at will. The defendants maintained that the claimants occupied merely as licensees or tenants at will but accepted that an implied term required the premises to be reasonably fit for purpose, extending in principle to roof repairs and adequate heating.

The leaking roof and evidential difficulties

Significant leaks had affected the hangar since 2018, with particularly severe damage from Storm Darragh in December 2024. The evidential picture proved problematic: the application was certified as urgent in April 2025 but not heard until September, during which time a series of further witness statements created what the judge described as a "ping-pong" pattern. The claimants would evidence new leaks with videos and photographs; the defendants would respond with evidence of repairs and their own inspections showing no leaks.

The claimants relied heavily on an expert report from Mr Greenwood, whose firm had maintained the roof since 2012. The defendants challenged the report's admissibility, citing Mr Greenwood's previous involvement as a factual witness, a prior winding-up petition by his firm against the defendants, and his potential financial interest in being appointed to carry out repairs.

De Mestre KC admitted the report but attached little weight to it. The expert's compromised position, combined with the fact that his proposals were seven months old and prepared without roof-level inspection, undermined their utility. Moreover, subsequent expensive repairs using different methods had been carried out since the report's preparation.

The judge declined to grant a mandatory injunction for roof repairs despite accepting that a serious issue existed and that damages would be inadequate. The "ping-pong" nature of the evidence meant insufficient certainty existed regarding the roof's current state, what repairs were needed, their likely cost and effectiveness. Instead, the court ordered an independent expert inspection, expressly excluding both parties' existing experts to ensure detachment.

Heating obligations and the qualified mandatory order

The heating issue proved more straightforward. Gas-powered heating had operated until October 2024 when the supply was disconnected due to a supplier dispute. Temperature logs showed consistently low single-figure readings in January and February 2025, forcing temporary shutdowns and operational disruption.

De Mestre KC granted a mandatory injunction but qualified it to require the defendants to use their best endeavours to restore gas-powered heating, rather than mandating a specific temperature. This approach, approved in Peninsular Maritime Ltd v Padseal Ltd [1981] 2 EGLR 43, recognised that restoration depended partly on third-party actions beyond the defendants' control.

The case demonstrates judicial reluctance to grant precise mandatory relief where factual uncertainty persists, whilst confirming that appropriately qualified orders remain available where the balance of convenience clearly favours intervention.