Di Silvio & Ors v Sharp & Anor [2022] EWHC 903 (Ch) (11 March 2022)

Di Silvio & Ors v Sharp & Anor [2022] EWHC 903 (Ch) (11 March 2022)

The correct legal test for breach of a restrictive covenant prohibiting annoyance is the hypothetical reasonable person test: whether a reasonable person in the position of the objectors would be annoyed by the activity. The judge below applied this test correctly, and the alternative 'range of reactions' test is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 903 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Emilio Di Silvio; Appellant: Anna Di Silvio; Appellant: Stuart Wilson; Appellant: Jane Barclay Wilson; Respondent: Gideon Sharp; Respondent: Nicky Sharp
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Annoyance Nuisance or Disturbance, Interpretation of Covenants, Reasonable Person Test
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Annoyance Nuisance or Disturbance Interpretation of Covenants Reasonable Person Test

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emilio Di Silvio

Appellant

Anna Di Silvio

Appellant

Stuart Wilson

Appellant

Jane Barclay Wilson

Appellant

Gideon Sharp

Respondent

Nicky Sharp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct legal test for determining breach of a restrictive covenant prohibiting annoyance, nuisance, or disturbance?
  2. 2 Did the judge below apply the correct legal standard in assessing whether the proposed extension would breach the covenant?

Ratio Decidendi

The correct legal test for breach of a restrictive covenant prohibiting annoyance is the hypothetical reasonable person test: whether a reasonable person in the position of the objectors would be annoyed by the activity. The judge below applied this test correctly, and the alternative 'range of reactions' test is not supported by authority or principle.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal is refused.