Dennis & Anor v Davies [2008] EWHC 2961 (Ch) (21 November 2008)

Dennis & Anor v Davies [2008] EWHC 2961 (Ch) (21 November 2008)

The proposed extension would, on an objective assessment, constitute an annoyance to reasonable occupiers of the claimants' properties by significantly interfering with their river views and enjoyment, thus breaching the nuisance and annoyance covenant. The management company's email did not amount to a formal written consent as required by the permission covenant, so no valid approval was given.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 2961 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Richard Dennis and Margaret Dennis; Claimant: Daniel Cameron and Irene Cameron; Claimant: Richard Giles; Claimant: Derek Tilsey and Ruth Tilsey; Claimant: Hannah Yentis; Defendant: Anthony Stephen Davies
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Nuisance and Annoyance, Planning Permission, Interpretation of Covenants
Property Law Covenants Restrictive Covenants Nuisance and Annoyance Planning Permission Interpretation 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Dennis and Margaret Dennis

Claimant

Daniel Cameron and Irene Cameron

Claimant

Richard Giles

Claimant

Derek Tilsey and Ruth Tilsey

Claimant

Hannah Yentis

Claimant

Anthony Stephen Davies

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed extension breaches restrictive covenants in the property transfer
  2. 2 Whether the extension constitutes a nuisance or annoyance under the covenant
  3. 3 Whether permission for the extension was validly granted by the management company

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed extension would, on an objective assessment, constitute an annoyance to reasonable occupiers of the claimants' properties by significantly interfering with their river views and enjoyment, thus breaching the nuisance and annoyance covenant. The management company's email did not amount to a formal written consent as required by the permission covenant, so no valid approval was given.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Injunction granted restraining the defendant from constructing the extension in breach of the covenants
  • Declaration that the proposed extension would breach the nuisance and annoyance covenant