Sugarman v Porter & Ors

Sugarman v Porter & Ors

The benefit of the restrictive covenants in the 1953 Conveyance was annexed only to land retained by Mrs Hart while unsold and did not pass to successors in title unless expressly assigned. The wording of the Conveyance displaced statutory annexation under Section 78 LPA 1925, and Section 63 LPA 1925 did not operate to assign the benefit in the absence of express assignment. The fencing covenant did not indicate a general intention to annex the benefit of all covenants.

Parties
Claimant: Lucille Nancy Sugarman; Defendant: George Richard Porter; Defendant: David Neil Creedon; Defendant: Brighton Lions Housing Society Ltd; Defendant: Teresa Wall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Declaration granted in favour of the Claimant
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Assignment of Benefit, Statutory Annexation, Interpretation of Conveyance
Land Law Property Law Restrictive Covenants Assignment of Benefit Statutory Annexation Interpretation of Conveyance

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucille Nancy Sugarman

Claimant

George Richard Porter

Defendant

David Neil Creedon

Defendant

Brighton Lions Housing Society Ltd

Defendant

Teresa Wall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the benefit of restrictive covenants in the 1953 Conveyance passed to successors in title absent express assignment
  2. 2 Whether the wording of the Conveyance displaced statutory annexation under Section 78 Law of Property Act 1925
  3. 3 Whether Section 63 LPA 1925 operated to assign the benefit of the covenants

Ratio Decidendi

The benefit of the restrictive covenants in the 1953 Conveyance was annexed only to land retained by Mrs Hart while unsold and did not pass to successors in title unless expressly assigned. The wording of the Conveyance displaced statutory annexation under Section 78 LPA 1925, and Section 63 LPA 1925 did not operate to assign the benefit in the absence of express assignment. The fencing covenant did not indicate a general intention to annex the benefit of all covenants.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted in favour of the Claimant

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendants are not entitled to enforce the restrictive covenants in the First Schedule to the 1953 Conveyance