The plaintiff mall owners sought over $12 million in consequential damages following the defendant anchor tenant's early closure in breach of its lease.
The trial was bifurcated, with liability previously determined in the plaintiffs' favour.
The court assessed various heads of damages, applying the test for remoteness from Hadley v. Baxendale.
The court awarded $570,216.02, finding that certain tenant inducements and lost rent from specific departing tenants were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the sudden breach.
However, the court dismissed the majority of the claims, concluding that mall renovations were planned maintenance, several tenant failures were unrelated to the breach, and the claim for lost prospective tenants was speculative.
