Doberman & Anor v Watson & Ors (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 1708 (Ch) (19 May 2017)

Doberman & Anor v Watson & Ors (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 1708 (Ch) (19 May 2017)

The Lands Tribunal's prior decision did not conclusively determine the enforceability or benefit of the restrictive covenant under s84(2) Law of Property Act 1925; only the court has jurisdiction to make such declarations. Therefore, no estoppel arises and the present claim is not barred nor abusive. The application to strike out or for summary judgment fails.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1708 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Susan Michele Doberman; Claimant: Robert Harvey Gilbert; Defendant: Arthur Thomas Watson; Defendant: Karen Watson; Defendant: W H King; Defendant: Robert Newall McMillan; Defendant: Julie Apedaile; Defendant: Linda Anne Bowles; Defendant: Michael James Wilde; Defendant: Gillian Wilde; Defendant: Michael David Connelly; Defendant: Katheryn Sarah Connelly; Defendant: Paul Colville Sewell; Defendant: Ethel Jane Sewell; Defendant: Katherine Jill Dodd; Defendant: Andrew John Robertson; Defendant: Cynthia Jamieson Duff; Defendant: A Hutchings; Defendant: John Harding Spoor; Defendant: Barbara Coulson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (chancery Division) / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for strike out or summary judgment dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction, Declaratory Relief
Property Law Civil Procedure Restrictive Covenants Estoppel Abuse of Process Jurisdiction Declaratory Relief

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Michele Doberman

Claimant

Robert Harvey Gilbert

Claimant

Arthur Thomas Watson

Defendant

Karen Watson

Defendant

W H King

Defendant

Robert Newall McMillan

Defendant

Julie Apedaile

Defendant

Linda Anne Bowles

Defendant

Michael James Wilde

Defendant

Gillian Wilde

Defendant

Michael David Connelly

Defendant

Katheryn Sarah Connelly

Defendant

Paul Colville Sewell

Defendant

Ethel Jane Sewell

Defendant

Katherine Jill Dodd

Defendant

Andrew John Robertson

Defendant

Cynthia Jamieson Duff

Defendant

A Hutchings

Defendant

John Harding Spoor

Defendant

Barbara Coulson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (chancery Division) / Application for Strike Out or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is barred by cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the Lands Tribunal's prior decision binds the parties as to the benefit of the covenant

Ratio Decidendi

The Lands Tribunal's prior decision did not conclusively determine the enforceability or benefit of the restrictive covenant under s84(2) Law of Property Act 1925; only the court has jurisdiction to make such declarations. Therefore, no estoppel arises and the present claim is not barred nor abusive. The application to strike out or for summary judgment fails.

Court Disposition

Application for strike out or summary judgment dismissed

Orders

  • Claim allowed to proceed to determination on merits