Doberman & Anor v Watson & Ors (Rev 1)

Doberman & Anor v Watson & Ors (Rev 1)

The Lands Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make a final determination on enforceability or benefit of the covenant under s84(2); its decisions and concessions are not binding for estoppel purposes. No abuse of process arises as the current proceedings concern distinct issues within the court's jurisdiction.

Parties
Claimant: Susan Michele Doberman; Claimant: Robert Harvey Gilbert; Defendant: Arthur Thomas Watson; Defendant: Karen Watson; 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: W H King; Defendant: A Hutchings; Defendant: John Harding Spoor; Defendant: Barbara Coulson; Defendant: Robert Newall McMillan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Summary Judgment or Striking Out
Outcome
Defendants' application for summary judgment or striking out dismissed.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Estoppel, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction, Res Judicata
Property Law Civil Procedure Restrictive Covenants Estoppel Abuse of Process Jurisdiction Res Judicata

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Michele Doberman

Claimant

Robert Harvey Gilbert

Claimant

Arthur Thomas Watson

Defendant

Karen Watson

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

W H King

Defendant

A Hutchings

Defendant

John Harding Spoor

Defendant

Barbara Coulson

Defendant

Robert Newall McMillan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Summary Judgment or Striking Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cause of action or issue estoppel arises from prior Lands Tribunal proceedings
  2. 2 Whether current proceedings constitute abuse of process
  3. 3 Jurisdictional scope of Lands Tribunal versus court under s84 Law of Property Act 1925

Ratio Decidendi

The Lands Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make a final determination on enforceability or benefit of the covenant under s84(2); its decisions and concessions are not binding for estoppel purposes. No abuse of process arises as the current proceedings concern distinct issues within the court's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for summary judgment or striking out dismissed.

Orders

  • If parties are unable to agree consequential orders, further submissions will be heard upon handing down judgment.