Williams v Williams [2004] EWCA Civ 870 (15 June 2004)

Williams v Williams [2004] EWCA Civ 870 (15 June 2004)

The judge was entitled to determine, as a question of fact, the permissible extent of tobacco and confectionery sales and display by reference to the character of a general store in 1963, and to prefer the evidence and findings from the earlier hearing over the expert report, which did not address the relevant period. The restriction imposed was justified and not open to appellate interference.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 870
Parties
Respondent/claimant: John Williams; Respondent/claimant: Hetty Mary Williams; Appellant/defendant: Christopher Reeves Kiley (Trading as CK Supermarkets)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, User Covenants, Injunctions, Interpretation of Leases
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Restrictive Covenants User Covenants Injunctions Interpretation of Leases

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Williams

Respondent/claimant

Hetty Mary Williams

Respondent/claimant

Christopher Reeves Kiley (Trading as CK Supermarkets)

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's sale and display of tobacco and confectionery breached user covenants in the lease by amounting to a separate trade of tobacconist or confectioner rather than being ancillary to a general store business.
  2. 2 How to define the permissible extent of tobacco and confectionery sales and display under the lease covenants as understood in 1963.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to determine, as a question of fact, the permissible extent of tobacco and confectionery sales and display by reference to the character of a general store in 1963, and to prefer the evidence and findings from the earlier hearing over the expert report, which did not address the relevant period. The restriction imposed was justified and not open to appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs summarily assessed at just over £6,000 to be paid by the appellant within 14 days.