University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking & Dagenham & Ors [2004] EWHC 2908 (Ch) (14 December 2004)

University of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking & Dagenham & Ors [2004] EWHC 2908 (Ch) (14 December 2004)

The Claimant must pay the Defendants' costs on an indemnity basis because the Defendants succeeded on all substantive issues until a late stage, and the rule of practice as a guideline remains applicable under the CPR. Separate representation for the first two Defendants was reasonable and both are entitled to their costs.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2908 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: University of East London Higher Education Corporation; First Defendant: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; Second Defendant: London Borough of Redbridge; Third Defendants: Persons Unknown owning or occupying property forming part of the Becontree Estate, East London (Number 2)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Post Judgment Hearing on Permission to Appeal and Costs
Outcome
Permission to appeal granted to the first two Defendants; Claimant ordered to pay both Defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Declarations Under Law of Property Act 1925 S.84, Costs Orders, Right of Pre Emption
Property Law Civil Procedure Restrictive Covenants Declarations Under Law of Property Act 1925 S.84 Costs Orders Right of Pre Emption

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University of East London Higher Education Corporation

Claimant

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

First Defendant

London Borough of Redbridge

Second Defendant

Persons Unknown owning or occupying property forming part of the Becontree Estate, East London (Number 2)

Third Defendants

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Post Judgment Hearing on Permission to Appeal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenants bind the Claimant and are enforceable by the Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to sell the property free from the covenants
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants have a right of pre-emption and at what price

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant must pay the Defendants' costs on an indemnity basis because the Defendants succeeded on all substantive issues until a late stage, and the rule of practice as a guideline remains applicable under the CPR. Separate representation for the first two Defendants was reasonable and both are entitled to their costs.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal granted to the first two Defendants; Claimant ordered to pay both Defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted to the first two Defendants on identified issues.
  • Claimant to pay the costs of the first and second Defendants on an indemnity basis.