CASE STUDIES

Landlord & Tenant Dispute

Our Process – Samzin Smart Strategies & using its Resolution Online platform "Mediator Affair" tries this case and resolves the prime issue confronting both landlord and tenant. The parties are requested to participate in the Samzin Smart Strategies video conferencing ODR process.

The Problem – A landlord and tenant dispute between a Footwear Go-down (the claimant) and the defendant (landlord) resulted in court action. The claim was for failure to detect/repair leaking pipes in the premises above the claimants which were rented out to another business causing his premises (where he conducted his business) to be flooded causing heavy damages to Claimant as his products Footwear can be easily subjected to destruction leading to heavy loss, it was alleged that the landlord eventually repaired the damages which were deemed by the claimant to be unsatisfactory, and requiring rectification the defendants refused, and denied any liability for disruption and economic loss, the claimant brought a claim for INR 8,50,000.

The Solution – Both parties had evidence which contradicted the arguments of the other, but ultimately made some sort of sense from where they were coming from, thus making this matter very difficult to mediate.

Clearly the claimant had experienced disruption and loss, clearly, the defendant had made repairs, which according to the claimant were still unsatisfactory, to an extent the defendant agreed, but blamed the claimant, as he had refused the landlords agents from entering his unit, thus denying access for them to make all the necessary repairs. In the later stages, he would find it difficult to engage the labourers and get those work done as they are already occupied with some other series of works.

Each party’s individual issue (head of the claim) was addressed issues which could be struck out were, issues of common ground and agreement were found as well as issues which neither would agree on.

Both parties agreed that any remedial work should be undertaken by the defendant, the issue of disruption and economic loss was looked at thoroughly. In a private session with the claimant and his solicitor it was established that the disruption was nowhere near as much as he had originally pleaded, there was an element of loss of business though; he was just so fed up of the landlord and his inaction relating to this matter and previous issues, not subject to this litigation.
By reality testing the claimant it was established that he really had a claim for about INR 1, 27,000. It was difficult to get the defendant to move at all, however, he saw that a commercial decision had to be made, equally, he was involved in other projects which involved the claimant and property which could easily turn sour, should this matter not be resolved. Equally, his insurance company had paid him out for the damage so he was not really out of pocket, the parties settled for INR 1, 00,000.

Our Approach

• The mediation took 1 day compared to the 9 months this landlord and tenant dispute would have taken.
• The mediation costs each party INR 10,000.00 each compared to more thousands they would have spent on legal fees and more thousands they would have had to spend had they initiated with Court action.

Partnership Dispute

Our Process – Samzin smart Strategies using its Resolution Online platform "Mediator Affair" tries this case and resolves the prime issue confronting both landlord and tenant. The parties are requested to participate in the Samzin Smart Strategies video conferencing ODR process.

The Problem – Partnership disputes can happen in any partnership. In this case, a solicitors firm fell into severe difficulty following the expulsion of two of their partners, the three remaining partners wanted to dissolve their partnership whereby a dispute arose over various issues concerning who would retain clients, IP rights, equipment as well as the lease.

Clearly, none of the remaining three trusted one another, none of them wanted to take on the hefty lease which was due to expire in two years. It was suggested by one of the partners that they continue to pay the lease and operate from their own individual premises, this was protested by the other two partners as they did not want to increase their overheads, the object was to minimize them.

A clause in the lease allowed them to sublease the premises with the landlord's consent, whereby they agreed to do this, providing consent was given, if not then all three of them agreed to continue to operate from the premises until the lease expired.

The Solution – The issue of IP rights was quickly resolved, due to the fall out and the bad taste this had left, none of them actually wanted the IP rights, even though originally all of them did, which was clearly being used as a negotiation tactic, they all agreed that any equipment they had purchased individually belonged to them and would be taken with them when they set up their own offices.

Any surplus equipment and furniture could be brought by whoever wanted it out of the three or just sold on and the proceeds to be split equally between the three. Although no debts except service charges and utilities were anticipated in the spirit of being amicable as one partner contended they agreed to split any such debts equally three ways, any profit would be split according to who had billed for that work, any surplus funds would be paid according to their shareholding, all three would take their respective clients with them.

Our Approach

• The mediation took 1 day compared to the 12 or more months these partnership disputes would have taken.
• The mediation costs each party INR 7,000 each compared to more thousands they would have spent on legal fees and more thousands they would have had to spend had they initiated the court litigation.