The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants.
Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to have been able to establish whether it was proper to resist the application had survived the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (44.3(2)(b)). The circumstances justifying the rule were still applicable. It was reasonable also for the defendants to have had separate representation, and each was entitled to the appropriate costs. There had been a potential conflict of interest.
Judges:
Lightman J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 2908 (Ch), Times 03-Jan-2005, [2005] 2 WLR 1334, [2005] 3 All ER 416, [2005] 2 Costs LR 287
Links:
Statutes:
Law of Property Act 1925 84(20, Civil Procedure Rules 44.3(2)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 9-Dec-2004
The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive . .
Cited – Re Jeffkins Indentures 1965
‘a plaintiff seeking a declaration that restrictive covenants do not affect his property is expected to pay his own costs. He is also expected to pay the costs of any defendants who enter an appearance down to the point in proceedings at which they . .
Cited – Re Wembley Park Estate Co Ltd’s Transfer 1968
The court confirmed the rule in Jeffkins and added that ‘the costs payable to the defendant should be paid on the common fund basis ‘since the obtaining of the order is something in the nature of a luxury to the plaintiff for which he ought to pay.’ . .
Not Followed – J Sainsbury plc v Enfield London Borough Council 1989
Land had been conveyed in 1894, the purchaser covenanting with the vendor (alone). The fact that the vendor retained other land was apparent from other parts of the conveyance, but the covenant was not expressed to be for the benefit of that land. . .
Cited – AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd CA 1-Feb-1999
The copyright tribunal was given a wide discretion for the awarding of costs on applications made to it for licenses. The nature of the applications and the different basis makes it dangerous to import rules for awards from the general rules on . .
Cited by:
See Also – University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 9-Dec-2004
The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Costs, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.220291