Court rules Jersey Oak can stay put

Friday 12 April 2019

The owners of a ‘substantial grade 4’ house with extensive gardens and outbuildings who allowed a furniture retailer to operate a business from their property have failed to get the Royal Court to enforce their plans to terminate the lease.

Back in 2017, husband and wife Peter Smith and Louise Bracken-Smith, who live at ‘Chateaubriand’, La Rue du Guillaume et Dannevile, in St Martin, agreed to let Simon Bellwood, run his business, Jersey Oak Limited, from some of the buildings in their grounds.

The lease was for five years at an annual rate of £28,200 to be paid in monthly instalments, and to go up every year by the rate of inflation.

Although the couple told the court they originally thought Mr Bellwood was a ‘nice guy’, that soon changed when they claim he broke the spirit of the contract, and also went ahead with alterations to the property without their permission.

The couple told the court they very much valued their ‘family life’ and only allowed Mr Bellwood to operate his business on their land because he promised to respect their feelings and because they believed he would be running a “a cottage industry” under the “Genuine Jersey” brand that would have “little or no impact upon their family life and home”.

As Mr Smith told the court “Home” is a very important concept to Louise and I.  Given our frequent travel with work, weekends and holiday time are incredibly important to us as a family and being able to enjoy time in our home is a significant part of that…”.

Mr Smith was clear Mr Bellwood, “portrayed [to me] that this was going to be a very low-key retail area that would be used specifically for viewings of invitation only events.  Had that not been the case then I would not have entertained the idea of leasing the retail space to him.”   

An agreement was drawn up between the parties and signed, but lawyers were never involved.

Pictured: Jersey Oak's showroom is situated in St Martin (credit Google Maps).

The Smiths claim the scale of the operation was much bigger than Mr Bellwood had led them to believe – in effect that he had lied. That he operated out of normal business hours. That his dangerous driving on the property was alarming them. That their children were frightened. And that he carried out a number of alterations to the property without their permission – some of them in contravention of planning law. These included erecting a marquee; putting up a 14-foot fence that prevented the family from enjoying their views of France; removing a flight of metal steps; and occupying a loft area not mentioned in the lease.

The court papers say Mr Bellwood’s account of events was very different from that given by Mr and Mrs Smith. He admitted there had been ‘a gradual deterioration in their relationship’, but ‘maintained that at no time did he knowingly act other than in accordance with the terms of the Lease or his discussions and written exchanges with Mr Smith’.

Pictured: Deputy Bailiff Tim Le Cocq, and Jurats Rozanne Thomas and Geoffrey Grime ruled Jersey Oak should be allowed to stay.

In their conclusion the court says although they found the Smiths to be honest witnesses, there was no doubt in their mind that ‘Mr Bellwood intended to operate the business in the way that he subsequently did’. And that the lease made provision for the operation ‘within normal business hours or by invitation’. In their opinion it was clear Mr Bellwood ‘anticipated a more substantial operation’ than the family had. 

They go on to say that although he may well have emphasised certain aspects of the business the Smiths wanted to hear he did not act dishonestly. 

The court though did agree Mr Bellwood had not been given permission to erect the marquee, remove the stairs, or erect the fence, and ordered these should be put right. Nevertheless, these were not grounds enough to terminate the lease.