Ex-Goldman Sachs banker sued for more than £100k by millionaire Knightsbridge neighbours over ‘leaking shower’
A former Goldman Sachs banker is being sued for more than £100,000 by his millionaire neighbors in Knightsbridge, London, after a leak allegedly collapsed their ceiling.
Swedish real estate magnate Samuel Wagner and his wife, Jennifer, say “annoyance and neglect with leaks” and other problems in their upstairs neighbor Leda Sara’s flat have led them to a World War II home in the exclusive Lennox Gardens. She says they have been evicted from their £1.4 million home in the Grade I-listed building three times and are faced with thousands of repair bills.
Miss Sara, a banker who works as an interior designer and estate agent for the mega-rich, bought her flat for £1.6 million in 2014, then gutted and renovated it before renting it out.
Mr and Mrs Wagner are now suing him for more than £100,000. Wagner says multiple leaks from the apartment above, as well as “excessive heat loss and vermin…accumulations of dust and garbage” during the renovation, caused “inconvenience” and forced them to move to a rented home three times.
They also claim delays in certifying that the leaks were fixed caused the sale of their flat to “fall through”, costing them £60,000, and are seeking compensation from Miss Sara.
Ms Sara, 50, claims she has no responsibility towards the neighboring couple and blames the contractors who carried out the renovations for any problems.
He also objects to the amounts requested by Mr. and Mrs. Wagner.
Lennox Gardens is one of the most exclusive garden squares in Knightsbridge, with houses on the square valued at up to £40 million.
The houses surrounding the gardens were built around 1886, when the 1,139 acres of private communal gardens in the center were located on the site of the former Prince’s Cricket Ground of the late 19th-century Prince’s Club.
The mayors and the City District Court heard Ms Sara, who now runs her own company focusing on acquiring and managing luxury properties for “high net worth individuals”, bought the flat above Mr and Mrs Wagner’s home in 2014 and immediately ran into problems with her downstairs neighbors as she proceeded to dismantle the furniture, kitchen, bathroom and partition walls as well as the lowered ceiling.
“The plaintiffs’ claim is that these early works caused problems such as excessive heat loss and pests, as well as accumulations of dust and garbage,” the couple’s lawyer, Joseph Meethan, told Judge Stephen Hellman.
Mr Meethan told the judge that the couple were forced to temporarily move out of their home in 2019 due to additional work being carried out on the flat, while a leaky shower collapsed their ceiling and “flooding” in their home caused by a faulty sprinkler system upstairs led them to move twice more the following year.
The couple decided to move home in 2020 and leave their neighbors’ problems behind, but the sale of their flat fell through in 2022, costing them over £60,000 in extra second home stamp duty because they were unable to sell the flat within the three-year limit after purchasing the other property.
The lawyer now said that the loss of this sale was due to Ms. Sara’s failure to provide evidence that the leaks were fixed within the required time frame.
He told the judge: “A number of leaks… have affected Chamber 4.
“On 18 August 2019, a damp area formed on the ceiling of Flat 4. This was due to a leak from the shower in Flat 5… The ceiling of Flat 4 collapsed and the plaintiffs moved in from 27 September 2019 to 4 November 2019.
“Further leaks occurred in the common area of the building in October 2021, July 2022 and October 2022, and another leak occurred in the kitchen of Flat 4 on August 1, 2022.
“It was the defendant’s responsibility to ensure that the outcome of the work was of high quality. The ongoing problems with leaks show that this was not done.”
“The plaintiffs were forced to leave their homes three times due to the defendant’s poor choice of contractor and lack of care for the neighbors. For this, the defendant should be liable for compensation.”
Faisel Sadiq, on behalf of Ms Sara, denied any obligation to pay.
He told the judge: “The plaintiffs were aware at all times that the works were being carried out by independent contractors.
“Defendant’s general position is that it is not legally liable for the negligence of an independent contractor or for the inconvenience caused by him.
“Plaintiffs cannot succeed in their claims against the defendant. As the case law clearly shows, a land owner is not the insurer of all independent contractors performing work on his land.”
He continued: “Generally speaking, the land owner will not be responsible for the nuisance caused by third parties. In cases where a nuisance is caused by a third party, the land owner will only be liable for the nuisance if he or she has been negligent in eliminating the nuisance after becoming aware that the nuisance has occurred.
“In addition, a landowner may be liable for nuisance caused by an independent contractor if he or she could reasonably foresee that the work he or she instructed the independent contractor to do would result in a nuisance.
“Plaintiffs’ claim is wholly misconstrued as purportedly intended to hold the defendant liable for inconvenience or negligence caused by independent contractors or its tenant. As a matter of law, the claim must be dismissed.”
In relation to the claim for a refund of lost stamp duty “allegedly due to the plaintiff’s inability to sell the property because of the defendant’s failure to prove that leaks into Flat 4 had been remedied”, counsel said: “There is no suggestion put forward that the defendant owes the plaintiffs a duty to provide such evidence.
“Beyond the plaintiffs’ submission, there is insufficient evidence that the sale of Flat 4 failed due to, or primarily because of, the lack of details provided by the defendant in relation to remedial works to Flat 5.”
The lawyer added that Ms Sara had brought a claim against a contractor who carried out work at her flat during the disputed period, demanding compensation for damages they had suffered in connection with the work they had carried out.
The trial continues.
