GLN (Copenhagen) Southern Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council: CA 27 Aug 2004

Neighbouring plots included covenants to use and not to use the land as cinemas. A proposed development would have used the land which had to be so used as an access for the new cinema proposed. The claimant sought to rely upon the Act to enforce a restrictive covenant.
Held: There was nothing in the contention that the use of the Property for the purpose of connecting up the Cinema for the purpose of services would constitute a breach of the clause. The services are provided for the benefit of the building and not for the benefit of the particular use.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene. Lord Justice Wall, Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1279

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedNorwich Union Life Insurance v British Railways Board 1987
The court made reference to the ‘torrential style of drafting which has been traditional for many years’ among draftsmen of covenants in leases. ‘The use of ordinary language to convey meaning often involves subtle discriminations which for most . .
CitedBeaufort Developments (NI) Limited v Gilbert-Ash NI Limited and Others HL 26-Feb-1998
The contractual ability given to an arbitrator under standard JCT terms did not oust the court from assessing and prejudging the acts of the architect under a building contract. As to the means for interpreting documents, Lord Hoffmann said: ‘I . .
CitedTea Trade Properties Ltd v CIN Properties Ltd ChD 1990
It is not unusual for conveyances to say the same thing twice: ‘… I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to . .
CitedCo-Operative Retail Services Ltd v Tesco Stores Ltd CA 20-Jan-1998
A covenant against the use of land for ‘the purpose of food retailing’ was not breached by the use of the land for associated landscaping without which immediately adjoining land could not have been used for food retailing. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.219522