Signature of St Albans (Property) Guernsey Ltd v Wragg & Ors (restrictive covenants in relation to land) [2017] EWHC 2352 (Ch) (27 September 2017)

Signature of St Albans (Property) Guernsey Ltd v Wragg & Ors (restrictive covenants in relation to land) [2017] EWHC 2352 (Ch) (27 September 2017)

The restrictive covenants in question are not enforceable against the claimant as owner of the property because, although the benefit and burden of the covenants have run to the respective parties, the relevant burdens were not protected by notice on the Land Register at the time of registration of the defendants' titles (except in one irrelevant instance), and breaches of the vendor covenants by predecessors in title do not disentitle all successors in title from enforcement. The density covenants are not continuing obligations binding successors to remove supernumerary houses erected by predecessors.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2352 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Signature of St Albans (Property) Guernsey Limited; Defendants: Stephen Peter Wragg and 19 others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim for Declarations Under Section 84(2) Law of Property Act 1925 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of the claimant; restrictive covenants not enforceable against the claimant's property.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Land Registration, Enforceability of Covenants, Mutual Covenants, Section 84(2) Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Land Registration Enforceability of Covenants Mutual Covenants Section 84(2) Law of Property Act 1925

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Signature of St Albans (Property) Guernsey Limited

Claimant

Stephen Peter Wragg and 19 others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim for Declarations Under Section 84(2) Law of Property Act 1925 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1910 restrictive covenants continue to affect the claimant's property
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenants are enforceable against the claimant as owner
  3. 3 If enforceable, by whom they are enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants in question are not enforceable against the claimant as owner of the property because, although the benefit and burden of the covenants have run to the respective parties, the relevant burdens were not protected by notice on the Land Register at the time of registration of the defendants' titles (except in one irrelevant instance), and breaches of the vendor covenants by predecessors in title do not disentitle all successors in title from enforcement. The density covenants are not continuing obligations binding successors to remove supernumerary houses erected by predecessors.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of the claimant; restrictive covenants not enforceable against the claimant's property.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1910 restrictive covenants do not continue to affect the claimant's property and are not enforceable against it as owner.
  • Costs order in favour of the claimant.