City Inn (Jersey) Ltd v Ten Trinity Square Ltd
The term 'Transferor' in the 1962 Transfer means only the Port of London Authority and does not include its successors in title. There is no absurdity in this construction, and the document does not contemplate successors. Therefore, only the PLA's consent is required for alterations or change of use, not that of its successor in title.
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: City Inn (Jersey) Limited; Defendant/appellant: Ten Trinity Square Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 06 March 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of Restrictive Covenants, Successors in Title, Construction of Transfer Deeds
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
City Inn (Jersey) Limited
Claimant/respondent
Ten Trinity Square Limited
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the term 'Transferor' in the 1962 Transfer includes successors in title or is limited to the Port of London Authority (PLA) only
- 2 Whether the consent for external alterations or change of use of Mariner House must be obtained from the PLA's successor in title
Ratio Decidendi
The term 'Transferor' in the 1962 Transfer means only the Port of London Authority and does not include its successors in title. There is no absurdity in this construction, and the document does not contemplate successors. Therefore, only the PLA's consent is required for alterations or change of use, not that of its successor in title.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment