MR CHARLES BERESFORD DAVIES-GILBERT v MR HENRY JAMES GOACHER & ANOR.

MR CHARLES BERESFORD DAVIES-GILBERT v MR HENRY JAMES GOACHER & ANOR.

The claimant's refusal of consent was reasonable in relation to the second reason (impact on neighbouring land), as it was based on relevant considerations and a reasonable process. The first reason (impact on the estate) was unreasonable as it related to irrelevant land, but the second reason was freestanding and sufficient to justify refusal. The defendants breached the restrictive covenant by erecting retaining walls without consent and did not reasonably believe their works were permitted.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Charles Beresford Davies-Gilbert; First Defendant: Mr Henry James Goacher; Second Defendant: Mr Steven Adrian Chester
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (property, Trusts & Probate) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; injunction granted; declaration that consent was not unreasonably withheld; defendants' counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Reasonableness of Consent, Injunctions, Declaratory Relief, Land Use, Planning Permission
Property Law Equity and Trusts Restrictive Covenants Reasonableness of Consent Injunctions Declaratory Relief Land Use Planning Permission

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Charles Beresford Davies-Gilbert

Claimant

Mr Henry James Goacher

First Defendant

Mr Steven Adrian Chester

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (property, Trusts & Probate) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant unreasonably withheld consent to the defendants' proposed construction under a restrictive covenant
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' works breached the restrictive covenant
  3. 3 Whether the defendants reasonably believed their works were permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's refusal of consent was reasonable in relation to the second reason (impact on neighbouring land), as it was based on relevant considerations and a reasonable process. The first reason (impact on the estate) was unreasonable as it related to irrelevant land, but the second reason was freestanding and sufficient to justify refusal. The defendants breached the restrictive covenant by erecting retaining walls without consent and did not reasonably believe their works were permitted.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; injunction granted; declaration that consent was not unreasonably withheld; defendants' counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Final injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out further works of construction or erection on the land without the claimant’s consent
  • Declaration that the claimant did not unreasonably withhold consent to the defendants’ application