Dano Ltd. v Earl Cadogan

Dano Ltd. v Earl Cadogan

The restrictive covenant was enforceable only so long as the benefited land formed part of the Cadogan Settled Estate in Chelsea. Once the settlement ceased in 1961, the covenant became unenforceable, and cannot be revived by subsequent arrangements.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Dano Limited; Defendant/appellant: Charles Gerald John 8th Earl Cadogan; Defendant/appellant: Cadogan Holdings Limited; Defendant/appellant: Cadogan Estates Limited; Defendant/appellant: Oakley Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interpretation of Covenants, Settled Land, Benefit of Covenants

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dano Limited

Claimant/respondent

Charles Gerald John 8th Earl Cadogan

Defendant/appellant

Cadogan Holdings Limited

Defendant/appellant

Cadogan Estates Limited

Defendant/appellant

Oakley Investments Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division)

  1. 1 Meaning of 'the Cadogan Settled Estate in Chelsea' in a 1929 restrictive covenant
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenant remains enforceable after the settlement ceased to exist

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenant was enforceable only so long as the benefited land formed part of the Cadogan Settled Estate in Chelsea. Once the settlement ceased in 1961, the covenant became unenforceable, and cannot be revived by subsequent arrangements.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs order to be agreed and drafted between the parties