The court considered the construction of a restrictive covenant, and was asked whether an indefinite article ‘a private dwellinghouse’ was to be construed as a limitation of number or whether it was to be construed as being as to the manner of use.
Held: Buxton LJ said that: ‘I do not think that the expression ‘a’ does carry any necessary implication of singularity. ‘A’ is an article, not a number. When, as here, one is concerned with how any particular building shall be used, a natural way of expressing that is ‘use as a private dwellinghouse.’
He went on to say ‘One has to remember, when looking at issues about the factual matrix, that although reference for that matrix is not limited to cases where the words are clearly ambiguous, the first place where one expects to find the meaning of the words and the intention of the draftsmen is in the words themselves. If they yield a fairly clear conclusion . . then one has to pause long before concluding that at that point the draftsman has used words with a meaning do not fit in with the objective he was seeking to attain.’
Judges:
Buxton LJ, Arden LJ
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1027, [2004] EGLR 77, A3/2004/0881
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Re Endricks’ Conveyance ChD 1973
Goulding J remarked that redundant words in a contract may sometimes serve the useful purpose of increasing clarity. . .
Cited – Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister CA 1-Apr-2004
Land had been purchased which was subject to a restrictive covenant. The papers did not disclose the precise extent of the dominant land, the land which benefitted from the restriction.
Held: The land having the benefit of a covenant had to be . .
Cited – Dobbs v Linford CA 1953
The tenant had entered into a covenant: ‘not to use the said premises for any purpose other than as a private dwelling-house And not to sublet or part with the possession of the premises (except as a furnished house) without the consent in writing . .
Cited – Briggs v McCusker 1996
Where one of the plots subject to a building scheme had been sub-divided, the benefit of the covenant in the scheme which originally burdened the whole plot did not pass to the owner of one of the subdivided plots so as to enable that owner to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Persimmon Homes (South Coast) Ltd v Hall Aggregates (South Coast) Ltd and Another TCC 10-Oct-2008
The parties had agreed for the sale of land under an option agreement. The builder purchasers now sought to exercise rights to adjust the price downwards.
Held: The provisions had been intended and had achieved a prompt and binding settlement . .
Cited – Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd TCC 7-Jul-2009
. .
Cited – Fitzpatrick Contractors Ltd v Tyco Fire and Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd (Prelinary Issues) TCC 13-Jun-2008
. .
Approved – Jani-King (GB) Ltd v Pula Enterprises Ltd and others QBD 23-Oct-2007
. .
Cited – Lambson Fine Chemicals Ltd v Merlion Capital Housing Ltd TCC 7-Feb-2008
. .
Cited – Persimmon Homes (South Coast) Ltd v Hall Aggregates (South Coast) Ltd and Another CA 22-Oct-2009
The defendant company had contracted to carry out works for the claimant. In fact the claimant did not ask the defendant to do the work but carried it out itself. When sued for damages the defendant claimed that the claimant’s conduct amounted to a . .
Applied – Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Rushmoor Borough Council Pillar (Farnborough) Ltd Admn 9-Sep-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Contract
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199983