The claimants sought to enforce a restrictive covenant to restrain a neighbour building an extension.
Held: A building could be a source of annoyance and therefore a breach of the particular covenant. The requirement for the builder’s permission was not inconsistent with an additional duty under the covenant. The test for annoyance the test is an objective one and must be judged by robust and common sense standards. The building could well be a source of annoyance and a breach of the covenant. An extension also did amount to a building within the covenant, and required the developer’s consent. The document relied on for this purpose was not such.
Judges:
Behrens J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC B20 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Tod-Heatley v Benham 1888
What was ‘annoyance’ between neighbours
The court considered how to construe a covenant in a lease ‘nor do or wittingly or willingly cause or suffer to be done any act, matter, or thing in or upon or about the said premises, which shall or may be or grow to the annoyance, nuisance, . .
Cited – Wood v Cooper 1894
There was a long lease of land with a dwellinghouse built on it. The lease contained covenants: ‘not to erect or build or cause to be erected or built upon the said piece of ground thereby demised, without the previous license in writing of the . .
Cited – Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd HL 25-Apr-1997
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278840
