- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v. Argyll Stores
Factual and Procedural Background
Company B operated a supermarket within a shopping centre owned by Company A. Under the 35-year lease, Clause 4(19) obligated Company B to “keep the demised premises open for retail trade during the usual hours of business.” In May 1995 Company B closed the loss-making store, stripping out its fittings and thereby breaching the covenant. Company A promptly issued a writ seeking specific performance and damages.
At first instance, Judge [Maddocks] refused specific performance and ordered damages to be assessed. The Court of Appeal reversed, granting a mandatory injunction compelling Company B to reopen and trade until assignment or lease expiry (3 August 2014). Company B appealed to the House of Lords. By the time of the appeal the lease had been assigned, so the mandatory injunction never operated; the dispute focused mainly on the propriety of granting such relief and the ensuing costs.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a court should order specific performance (by way of a mandatory injunction) compelling a tenant to carry on a commercial business pursuant to a “keep-open” covenant.
- Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to overturn the trial judge’s discretionary refusal to grant such relief.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's (Company B) Arguments
- The settled practice of English courts is not to compel parties to run a business; damages are the appropriate remedy.
- Specific performance would require constant judicial supervision and rely on contempt proceedings—an unsuitable enforcement mechanism.
- The covenant’s wording (“keep open for retail trade”) is too imprecise to be policed effectively.
- Forcing the supermarket to reopen would impose disproportionate losses and give Company A an unfair bargaining position.
Respondent's (Company A) Arguments
- Damages would be difficult to quantify and would not fully compensate for the loss of the supermarket’s “magnet” effect on the shopping centre.
- Modern case-management techniques minimise supervision difficulties; the court should simply make the order and deal with issues if they arise.
- Company B’s conduct was commercially cynical, justifying equitable intervention.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General v. Colchester Corporation [1955] 2 QB 207 | Historical observation that courts do not compel operation of a business | Used to illustrate the long-standing practice the Court of Appeal departed from |
| Wilson v. Northampton & Banbury Junction Railway Co. (1874) LR 9 Ch App 279 | Equity’s aim to provide more “complete justice” where common-law damages are inadequate | Quoted to frame the discretionary nature of specific performance |
| Braddon Towers Ltd v. International Stores Ltd [1987] 1 EGLR 209 | Statement of “settled and invariable practice” against ordering parties to run a business | Cited as persuasive confirmation of existing doctrine |
| Dowty Boulton Paul Ltd v. Wolverhampton Corporation [1971] 1 WLR 204 | Refusal to compel operation of an airfield business, regardless of adequacy of damages | Supports the proposition that supervision concerns alone can bar relief |
| J.C. Williamson Ltd v. Lukey & Mulholland (1931) 45 CLR 282 | Specific performance inappropriate where continuous court supervision would be required | Relied on to underscore enforcement difficulties |
| C.H. Giles & Co. v. Morris [1972] 1 WLR 307 | Discussion of “constant superintendence” and contempt as enforcement mechanisms | Distinguished; House found the Court of Appeal had misread its import |
| Shiloh Spinners Ltd v. Harding [1973] AC 691 | Difference between enforcing repair conditions and ongoing commercial obligations | Clarified that Lord Wilberforce’s comments did not undermine the settled practice |
| Wolverhampton Corporation v. Emmons [1901] 1 QB 515 | Specific performance of building contracts where result—not activity—is mandated | Used to contrast result-oriented orders with keep-open covenants |
| Jeune v. Queens Cross Properties Ltd [1974] Ch 97 | Specific performance of repairing covenants | Reinforces distinction between achievable results and ongoing activities |
| Redland Bricks Ltd v. Morris [1970] AC 652 | Need for precision in mandatory injunctions | Applied to show the covenant here lacked sufficient clarity |
| Tito v. Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch 106 | Misinterpretation of Shiloh Spinners on supervision concerns | House clarified this misunderstanding |
| Isenberg v. East India House Estate Co Ltd (1863) 3 De GJ & S 263 | Risk of plaintiffs obtaining leverage for “extortionate” settlements | Invoked to illustrate potential injustice in compelling loss-making performance |
| Greene v. West Cheshire Railway Co. (1871) LR 13 Eq 44 | Examples where personal faith warranted specific performance | Used to show present case lacked comparable equities |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The House emphasised that specific performance is a discretionary, exceptional remedy. It reaffirmed a settled practice: courts do not compel parties to run a business because:
- Supervision & Contempt: Enforcing an ongoing business obligation necessitates potentially endless applications to determine compliance, with contempt proceedings an unduly heavy enforcement tool.
- Imprecision: The clause “keep open for retail trade” lacks objective benchmarks on product range, trading intensity, or staffing, making any order vague and litigation-prone.
- Economic Waste & Oppression: Forcing Company B to trade at a loss could enrich Company A beyond its contractual expectation and saddle both parties, and the court system, with protracted conflict.
- Alternative Remedy: Although damages may be complex to assess, they remain the proper, once-and-for-all solution.
- No Exceptional Equity: Both companies were sophisticated commercial actors; no element of personal trust or bad-faith bargaining justified departing from the usual rule.
Accordingly, Judge [Maddocks] had exercised his discretion soundly. The Court of Appeal erred by treating supervision concerns as outdated, underestimating imprecision, and over-emphasising Company B’s conduct.
Holding and Implications
Appeal ALLOWED. The order granting a mandatory injunction is set aside, and the trial judge’s refusal of specific performance is restored; damages remain to be assessed.
Implications: The decision consolidates the longstanding principle that English courts will not compel a defendant to carry on a commercial enterprise. Landlords seeking to enforce “keep-open” clauses must ordinarily rely on damages rather than mandatory injunctions. The ruling provides certainty for commercial actors and preserves judicial resources, without creating new precedent outside established doctrine.
Alert