Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood & Ors (pre-1926 restrictive covenants affecting land)

Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood & Ors (pre-1926 restrictive covenants affecting land)

The benefit of the restrictive covenant in the 1922 conveyance was annexed to land retained by the vendor at the time, including land now owned by the seventh and eighth defendants, and is enforceable by them as successors in title. The land to be benefited was sufficiently identified by reference to the conveyance and extrinsic evidence. There was no assignment or building scheme. The claim for a declaration that the covenant is unenforceable by anyone is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Bath Rugby Limited; Defendant: Caroline Greenwood; Defendant: David Arthur Greenwood; Defendant: Edwin John Horlick; Defendant: Eric Newbiggin; Defendant: Dr Savio Anil De Sequeria; Defendant: Peter Francis Sherwin; Defendant: 77 Great Pulteney Street Limited; Defendant: Godfrey Douglas White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (cpr Part 8) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Annexation, Enforceability of Covenants, Law of Property Act 1925 S.84(2), Assignment of Benefit, Building Schemes
Property Law Equity and Trusts Restrictive Covenants Annexation Enforceability of Covenants Law of Property Act 1925 S.84(2) Assignment of Benefit Building Schemes

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bath Rugby Limited

Claimant

Caroline Greenwood

Defendant

David Arthur Greenwood

Defendant

Edwin John Horlick

Defendant

Eric Newbiggin

Defendant

Dr Savio Anil De Sequeria

Defendant

Peter Francis Sherwin

Defendant

77 Great Pulteney Street Limited

Defendant

Godfrey Douglas White

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (cpr Part 8) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant in the 1922 conveyance is unenforceable and not binding on the claimant under s.84(2) Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the benefit of the covenant was annexed to land retained by the vendor and thus enforceable by successors in title
  3. 3 Whether the benefit of the covenant passed by assignment or under a building scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The benefit of the restrictive covenant in the 1922 conveyance was annexed to land retained by the vendor at the time, including land now owned by the seventh and eighth defendants, and is enforceable by them as successors in title. The land to be benefited was sufficiently identified by reference to the conveyance and extrinsic evidence. There was no assignment or building scheme. The claim for a declaration that the covenant is unenforceable by anyone is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the restrictive covenant in the 1922 conveyance is enforceable by the seventh and eighth defendants and others with properties forming part of the Bathwick Estate at the time of the 1922 conveyance and which are adjoining or near to the Rec.