Davies v Dennis & Ors

Davies v Dennis & Ors

The restrictive covenant in paragraph 2 is sufficiently wide to apply to the erection of buildings or extensions that may constitute an annoyance to neighbouring owners, and operates independently of the approval process in paragraph 1. The appellant did not obtain the required written approval for the works. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Anthony Stephen Davies; Respondents/claimants: Richard and Margaret Dennis; Respondents/claimants: Daniel and Irene Cameron; Respondent/claimant: Richard Giles; Respondents/claimants: Derek and Ruth Tilsley; Respondent/claimant: Hannah Yentis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Construction of Covenants, Injunctions, Building Approvals, Nuisance or Annoyance
Land Law Property Law Restrictive Covenants Construction of Covenants Injunctions Building Approvals Nuisance or Annoyance

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Stephen Davies

Appellant/defendant

Richard and Margaret Dennis

Respondents/claimants

Daniel and Irene Cameron

Respondents/claimants

Richard Giles

Respondent/claimant

Derek and Ruth Tilsley

Respondents/claimants

Hannah Yentis

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant in paragraph 2 applies to the erection of buildings or extensions
  2. 2 Whether the proposed extension would constitute a nuisance or annoyance under the covenant
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had obtained written approval under paragraph 1 for the building works

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenant in paragraph 2 is sufficiently wide to apply to the erection of buildings or extensions that may constitute an annoyance to neighbouring owners, and operates independently of the approval process in paragraph 1. The appellant did not obtain the required written approval for the works. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the proposed building works would breach restrictive covenants
  • Injunction restraining the appellant from carrying out the works