This case went to court last week, and was decided in favour of the defendant. The claim was rejected (not sure of the correct term) and the claimant had to pay costs for loss of earnings and for travel to the court.
The main factors that the judge cited when making the decisions were:
1. The lease gave the defendant the use of a specific named space. The space wasn't "allocated" or part of a pool of spaces, it was a specific space identified in the lease.
2. The lease granted Exclusive Use of the space.
3. The lease provided the ability for the landlord to make Regulations for the running of the estate.
4. The claimant was required to show that such a regulation regarding parking had been made. The judge focused on this point and asked the claimant for their evidence of such a regulation. It was noted that the Management Agreement between the landlord and the claimant was not a regulation. Similarly, the display of signs at the site was not such a regulation.
4. The claimant could not show that such a regulation had been made.
Therefore the judgement was in favour of the defendant.
Note that the point in my original question, regarding whether consideration was required from and provided by the claimant, was not tested in court.
Thanks again for the input from this forum.
P.S. I could make a separate post in this forum to make this judgement easier to find for others. Should I do that?
P.P.S. I'm writing this in the third person, as the defendant was a friend of mine. I appeared in court as a Lay Representative of the defendant, and spoke on their behalf.
