A land transfer had contained a clause requiring a restrictive covenant agreeing not to erect any building without the approval by the neighbours of plans.
Held: The term ‘transferors’ was to be read to include the transferors’ successors in title. There was to be implied into the covenant a condition that approval was not to be unreasonably withheld. The purpose of the covenant was to protect the retained land of the covenantees which might be affected by any change. The structure of the clause allowed the possibility of the erection of a garden shed or domestic garage. Because, in the opening words of the covenant itself, the words ‘and their successors in title’ were to be implied under section 78 after the words ‘the Transferors’ then it was possible to construe the words ‘the Transferors’ later in the same clause as also referring to ‘the Transferors and their successors in title’.
Judges:
Hart J
Citations:
Times 16-Jun-2005, [2005] 3 EGLR 67
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cryer v Scott Brothers Sunbury Ltd 1986
A covenant had been taken on the sale of building land to require all building plans to be submitted to the transferors for their approval before building work was commenced.
Held: There was an implication that the transferors would not . .
Cited – Price v Bouch 1986
The power to approve building plans on an estate had been passed to a committee of all estate owners. The plaintiff said that a term should be implied to say that approval should not be unreasonably withheld.
Held: A term that consent would . .
Cited – Re Jilla’s Application 2000
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Davies v Dennis and Others CA 22-Oct-2009
The land owner appealed against an injunction given to prevent him carrying out building works which the neighbours said would breach a restrictive covenant. The covenants negatived a building scheme.
Held: The appeal failed. Covenants of the . .
Cited – Margerison v Bates and Another ChD 30-May-2008
The court considered the construction of a restrictive covenant after the disappearance of the covenantee. The covenant required no additional building without the consent of the covenantee, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The term . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.228505
