Jarvis Homes Ltd v Marshall and Another: CA 6 Jul 2004

An intended new road was going to be the access way for 12 new houses. Part of a restrictive covenant provided that the covenantors and their successors would not ‘use or permit or suffer to be used the land hereby conveyed or any part thereof or any building or erection now or at any time hereafter erected thereon for any trade business or manufacture but will use the same as a private residence only.’
Held: The words ‘the same’ referred not just to any building on the land but to the whole composite noun clause, meaning the land and all parts of it as well as any building on it. So construed, the covenant operated to prohibit the use of the land as the access way to another part of the development on adjoining land. A dwellinghouse is a narrower concept than residence.

Judges:

Thorpe LJ, Rix LJ, neuberger LJ

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 839, [2004] 3 EGLR 81

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRolls v Miller CA 1884
The court was asked as to the effect of a restrictive covenant requiring a house not to be used for trade or business. Lindley LJ said that the dictionary meanings of the term ‘business’ embrace ‘almost anything which is an occupation, as . .
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. . .
CitedElliott v Safeway Stores plc 1995
Proposed use of land would be in breach of covenant when it was put to a use which was ancillary to the use of adjoining land.
Held: The allegation failed. There would only have been a breach if the land in question had been used for the . .
CitedMander v Falcke 1891
A restrictive covenant is enforceable against an occupier of the land. It could be a breach to use an access for land beyond that originally envisaged. . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198849