Gafford v A H Graham and Grandco Securities Limited: CA 8 Apr 1998

A land owner who was aware of his rights under a restrictive covenant, and who stood by whilst a riding school was erected in breach of the covenant, was not later to be allowed injunctive mandatory relief to enforce the covenant, by virtue of his acquiescence. The measure of damages questions involved in such cases is a matter of judgment which is incapable of strictly rational and logical exposition from beginning to end. The primary basis of assessment ‘is to consider the sum that would have been arrived at in negotiations between the parties had each been making reasonable use of their respective bargaining positions without holding out for unreasonable amounts.’ A claimant may lose his entitlement to claim damages if he has been guilty of such acquiescence as to make it in all the circumstances unconscionable for him to rely upon his legal right.
Nourse LJ, Pill LJ, Thorpe LJ
Gazette 20-Oct-1999, Times 01-May-1998, Gazette 28-May-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 666, [1998] 3 EGLR 75, [1999] 41 EG 159, [1999] 77 P and CR 73
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedShaw v Applegate CA 1977
There was a covenant against the use of a property as an amusement arcade. Within three years the purchaser had installed amusement machines, but it was not until three years later that the plaintiffs issued proceedings for an injunction and . .

Cited by:
CitedMidtown Ltd v City of London Real Property Company Ltd ChD 20-Jan-2005
Tenants occupied land next to land which was to be developed after compulsory acquisition. The tenants and the landlords asserted a right of light over the land, and sought an injunction to prevent the development. The developer denied that any . .
CitedSmall v Oliver and Saunders (Developments) Ltd ChD 25-May-2006
The claimant said his property had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme so as to allow him to object to the building of an additional house on a neighbouring plot in breach of a covenant to build only one house on the plot. Most but not all . .
CitedWWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and Another v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc CA 2-Apr-2007
The parties had disputed use of the initals WWF, with a compromise reached in 1994 allowing primary use by the Fund with restricted use by the Federation. The Federation now appealed an award of damages made after a finding of a breach of the . .
CitedJones v Stones CA 11-May-1999
No defence of acquiescence or estoppel arose from a failure by a land owner to pursue a complaint. Such a defence could only be established by some positive act of encouragement or allowance by him. The heart of the action lay in the allowance of a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 May 2021; Ref: scu.144144