Douglas Gafford v A H Graham & Grandco Securities Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 666 (8 April 1998)

Douglas Gafford v A H Graham & Grandco Securities Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 666 (8 April 1998)

The plaintiff acquiesced in the conversion of the bungalow and the extension to the barn, barring all relief for those breaches. For the indoor riding school and current business, the plaintiff did not acquiesce, but it would be oppressive to grant an injunction; damages in lieu are appropriate, assessed on the Wrotham Park basis as the sum the plaintiff might reasonably have demanded for relaxing the covenants.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 666
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Douglas Gafford; Defendant (appellant): A H Graham; Defendant (appellant): Grandco Securities Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Mayor's and City of London Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Acquiescence, Injunctions, Damages in Lieu, Freehold Land, Remedies for Breach of Covenant
Property Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Acquiescence Injunctions Damages in Lieu Freehold Land Remedies for Breach of Covenant

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Gafford

Plaintiff (respondent)

A H Graham

Defendant (appellant)

Grandco Securities Ltd

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Mayor's and City of London Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction or damages in lieu for breaches of restrictive covenants affecting freehold land
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff acquiesced in the defendant's breaches, barring relief
  3. 3 Appropriate measure of damages for breach of restrictive covenants

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff acquiesced in the conversion of the bungalow and the extension to the barn, barring all relief for those breaches. For the indoor riding school and current business, the plaintiff did not acquiesce, but it would be oppressive to grant an injunction; damages in lieu are appropriate, assessed on the Wrotham Park basis as the sum the plaintiff might reasonably have demanded for relaxing the covenants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Injunctions granted by the judge discharged.
  • Damages reduced from £36,750 to £34,375.