A conveyance contained a covenant from 1929 restricting use of the land to the provision of housing for ‘the working classes.’ The land owner sought a declaration that the covenant was no longer enforceable on the grounds of vagueness.
Held: In fact the respondent no longer owned any land capable of benefiting from the covenant, and accordingly it was no longer valid. However, if the issue had been live, the court would have held that the term ‘working classes’ remained meaningful. There was no difficulty interpreting the term to accord with current useages.
Judges:
Etherton J
Citations:
Times 14-Mar-2003
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster ChD 1991
There was a covenant that the premises should not ‘be used for any art trade or business or profession whatsoever . . ‘ but should be ‘kept and used only for the purposes of the Grosvenor Housing Scheme as dwellings for the working classes . . ‘. . .
Cited – Guinness Trust (London Fund) v Green 1955
Terms used in older documents could be re-interpreted to accord with current usage. . .
Cited – In re Niyazi’s Will Trusts 1978
Terms in older documents could be re-interpreted to accord with current useage. . .
Appealed to – Dano Ltd v Earl Cadogan and others CA 19-May-2003
The defendants appealed against an order declaring that restrictive covenants on land of which they claimed the benefit were no longer of effect.
Held: The covenants were expressed to be in favour of property for so long as it formed part of . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Dano Ltd v Earl Cadogan and others CA 19-May-2003
The defendants appealed against an order declaring that restrictive covenants on land of which they claimed the benefit were no longer of effect.
Held: The covenants were expressed to be in favour of property for so long as it formed part of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.180091