Dennis & Anor v Davies

Dennis & Anor v Davies

The proposed extension would constitute an annoyance within the meaning of the restrictive covenant, as it would significantly trouble the minds of ordinary sensible inhabitants of the claimants' houses. No formal written consent was granted by the management company for the extension, so the permission covenant was also breached.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Nuisance, Annoyance, Planning Permission, Approval of Building Plans
Property Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Nuisance Annoyance Planning Permission Approval of Building Plans

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed extension breaches restrictive covenants regarding approval of plans and nuisance/annoyance.
  2. 2 Whether permission for the extension was granted by the management company.
  3. 3 Whether the extension constitutes a nuisance or annoyance to neighbouring owners.

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed extension would constitute an annoyance within the meaning of the restrictive covenant, as it would significantly trouble the minds of ordinary sensible inhabitants of the claimants' houses. No formal written consent was granted by the management company for the extension, so the permission covenant was also breached.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Extension not permitted as proposed; injunction granted restraining construction in breach of covenants.
  • No formal consent for extension; management company may reconsider revised plans.