The court was asked whether a health authority’s housing of former mental in-patients in two houses on a residential estate resulted in a breach of one or both of two covenants burdening the houses. One covenant, (20) was: ‘Not to cause or permit or suffer to be done in or upon the property any act or thing which may be or become a nuisance, annoyance, danger or detriment to the transferor or owners or occupiers for the time being of other parts of the estate’
Held: the appeal succeeded. There had been no breach of covenant.
Nourse LJ said: ‘Mr Macdonald’s [for the appellant] primary submission was that the covenant does not impose any restriction on the persons who may occupy the property. It only restricts the acts or things which the occupants, whoever they be, may do there. Although Ferris J thought that that was too narrow a view, I suspect that it accords with the construction which most conveyancers would put on a covenant in this form, again a very familiar one’.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR said: ‘The position in relation to covenant 20 is quite different. Once again I have to look to the object and to the words. It is not directed to the use being made of the property, that being the subject matter of covenant 24(2). It is directed instead at conduct in or upon the premises which causes or may cause nuisance, annoyance, danger or detriment to other owners . . or occupiers of other parts of the estate or to the plaintiff. No complaint whatsoever is being made in relation to the conduct of the occupants in or upon the premises. The evidence relied upon as constituting a detriment to the plaintiff relates solely to the use of the premises made by the Secretary of State and amounts to no more than that in a buyers’ market a particular purchaser was astute enough to use the general nature of that use as a lever to obtain a small reduction in the purchase price. There has been no breach of covenant 20′.
Judges:
Nourse LJ, Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR
Citations:
[1991] Ch 365
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Davies v Dennis and Others CA 22-Oct-2009
The land owner appealed against an injunction given to prevent him carrying out building works which the neighbours said would breach a restrictive covenant. The covenants negatived a building scheme.
Held: The appeal failed. Covenants of the . .
Cited – Triplerose Ltd v Beattie and Another UTLC 4-Jun-2020
Short term visitor sublets were breach of lease
Landlord and Tenant – Breach of Covenant – covenant against use of flat other than as a private dwelling house and prohibiting use for trade or business – whether breached by use of flat as serviced apartment advertised on internet booking sites – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.377204