A wealthy accountant who complained one of her bathrooms had no bath and that a tiny utility cupboard ruined the open plan living of her lavish £1.5million Versace-designed London flat, has lost a £700,000 court fight.
Mi Suk Park said she was promised the ‘the ultimate in luxury’ when she paid a £381,000 deposit on a two-bed apartment and parking space in the 50-storey Thames-side Aykon London One tower 10 years ago.
Dubbed the ‘Versace Tower’ after a high-profile collaboration between developers and the fashion house to design the interior, the off-plan purchase was made after Ms Park viewed a brochure and floor plan.
Seven years later, when the deluxe pad was finally ready two years behind schedule, Ms Park, 54, refused to move in and sued developers for more than £700,000 after complaining the layout of the luxury flat was ‘materially and manifestly different’ from the one she saw when she paid her deposit.
Her main gripes were about an intrusive ‘one-metre square’ utility cupboard, which she said ‘impinges’ on what she expected to be an ‘open plan living space,’ and that one of the two bathrooms did not have a bathtub.
But her case has now been thrown out after Judge Alan Johns ruled the ‘small’ cupboard being moved to a different place had not affected the value of the apartment.
‘The utilities cupboard always had to go somewhere, this was not the introduction of a new factor which reduced the usable area of the apartment,’ he said.
‘Buyers in this development were more likely to be interested in buying in an up-and-coming area and the Versace branding, rather than the position of the utilities cupboard.’
Mi Suk Park, 54, has lost her £700,000 court war after suing developers of her £1.5m home
The accountant complained a tiny utility cupboard ruined the open plan living of her luxury £1.5million Versace-designed London flat. Pictured is the 50-storey flat complex in London
Picture shows the entrance lobby with utility cupboard in left foreground of flat which Ms Park said spoiled the flat’s open-plan living
Ms Park had demanded more than £700,000, comprising the deposit money she paid and cash to cover five years’ rent and other losses she said she suffered, London Central Court heard.
But lawyers for developer Nine Elms Property Ltd – a Jersey-based entity owned by a parent company in Dubai – fought the claim, insisting her deposit had been forfeited.
They argued the brochure Ms Park saw was for illustrative purposes only and made clear that what was shown was simply an example of a ‘typical layout’.
Nazar Mohammad, for Ms Park, who runs an accountancy business in Surrey, told the judge the 54-year-old had agreed the deal in November 2015 and paid her deposit towards a purchase price of £1,524,400.
‘The apartment was an “off plan” purchase…It was to be an open-plan layout,’ he said. ‘The defendant’s expert and the defendant accept that the built apartment is not the same as the plan attached to the contract dated November 6, 2015.’
He said ‘irredeemable breaches’ of the purchase contract include the fact ‘the utility cupboard impinges on the living space. It cannot be altered….The second bedroom is smaller…The second bathroom has no bathtub.’
But cross-examining Ms Park on behalf of the developers, barrister Rupert Cohen said the brochure had shown example apartments and pointed out that ‘at the top of each page…it says ‘typical layout’.’
‘You may call me careless, but I didn’t see “typical” as an important word,’ Ms Park replied.
Pictured is an image of what the interior of one of the flats in the tower would look like
Ms Park also complained one of the two bathrooms in her flat did not have a bath (pictured)
Ms Park (pictured outside court) said she and her husband intend the flat would be their ‘main home until retirement’, the court heard
Mr Cohen told the judge: ‘Ms Park refused to complete and, instead, purported to rescind the contract by letter dated October 14 2022.
‘Subsequently, the defendant served notice to complete on November 22 2022 and, following the claimant’s failure to complete, a notice of termination on January 9 2023. Ms Park issued these proceedings on April 21 2023.
‘The court is invited to grant the declarations sought in the counterclaim, namely that the contract has been terminated and the…payments forfeited to the defendant.’
Handing the developers victory, the judge said: ‘This case is brought by a disappointed purchaser.
‘She bought the apartment off-plan…but refused to complete following inspection of the as-built apartment.
‘She says the utility cupboard now impinges – at least as she sees it – on the living and dining area, whereas the plan shows the cupboard as occupying a different position.
‘Also only one of the two bathrooms has a bathtub, the other having a walk-in shower. The contractors’ plan showed a bathtub in each bathroom.’
The judge explained the clauses in the sale contract made it clear the developers were allowed to revise the plans and layout of the apartments, but would have to seek written permission if they were deemed ‘material changes’ that negatively impacted the value of the apartment overall.
Ms Park made the decision to buy the flat off-plan in 2015 after seeing the brochure (pictured)
Pictured is a promotional image showing what one of the bedrooms would look like
The artist’s impression of the new apartment block show it towering above the London skyline next to the River Thames
Ms Park had been entitled to rescind only if ‘obliged to accept a property which substantially differs in quality, quantity or tenure’ from that shown in the plan.
The judge said many buyers of apartments in the block were from overseas and looking to buy as an investment to let out, and might never see the actual built apartments in person.
‘Whilst the utilities cupboard does eat a little into the living space, there is the benefit of a larger principle bedroom,’ he said.
‘It was put by the claimant that a light and airy flat had become dark and enclosed. I can’t accept that. There is a reduction of natural light to the kitchen, but it is slight indeed.
‘The utilities cupboard does now intrude somewhat, but the area of the utilities cupboard is small – one-metre square.
‘It was suggested that some purchasers might prefer the layout as it might shield a view of a messy kitchen from the rest of the apartment.
‘Any obligation to provide an apartment as shown in the plan is qualified.
‘It is business commonsense and is to be expected that, in a complex large-scale development like this, changes may be made to the plans.
‘The question becomes one of the materiality of the changes made and whether the changes made had any material effect on the value of the apartment, whether there was a diminution of value in relation to the change in the location of the utilities cupboard.
‘There was, in my judgment, no material change in value as a result of the change in location of the utilities cupboard.
He added: ‘The claim is dismissed and the declarations asked for in the counterclaim are made. The contract is terminated and the sums paid by Ms Park forfeited.’
