Churchill v Temple & Ors [2010] EWHC 3369 (Ch) (22 October 2010)

Churchill v Temple & Ors [2010] EWHC 3369 (Ch) (22 October 2010)

The covenants in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 1st Schedule to the Conveyance required the consent of the original vendors only, not their successors in title. Upon the death of the original vendors, the covenants ceased to be enforceable and did not become absolute prohibitions. Ms. Azam is not entitled to enforce the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3369 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Trevor Anthony John Churchill; Defendant: Graham Robin Temple; Defendant: Jacqueline Simone Temple; Defendant: Leslie Maureen Azam
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Application for Declarations / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of the claimant; restrictive covenants in paragraphs 4 and 5 are no longer enforceable.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Construction of Deeds, Enforceability of Covenants, Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Construction of Deeds Enforceability of Covenants Law of Property Act 1925

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Anthony John Churchill

Claimant

Graham Robin Temple

Defendant

Jacqueline Simone Temple

Defendant

Leslie Maureen Azam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Application for Declarations / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms. Azam is entitled to enforce the covenants in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 1st Schedule to the Conveyance
  2. 2 Whether the requirement for approval or written consent of 'the Vendors or their surveyor' includes successors in title
  3. 3 Effect of the death of the original vendors on the enforceability of the covenants

Ratio Decidendi

The covenants in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 1st Schedule to the Conveyance required the consent of the original vendors only, not their successors in title. Upon the death of the original vendors, the covenants ceased to be enforceable and did not become absolute prohibitions. Ms. Azam is not entitled to enforce the covenants as there was no assignment in her favour and section 56 of the Law of Property Act 1925 does not apply. There is no implied term that consent should not be unreasonably withheld in paragraph 5.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of the claimant; restrictive covenants in paragraphs 4 and 5 are no longer enforceable.

Orders

  • Ms. Azam has no right to enforce the covenants in paragraphs 4 and 5.
  • The requirement for approval or written consent does not extend to successors in title.