Churchill v Temple & Ors

Churchill v Temple & Ors

The requirement for approval or written consent in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 1967 Conveyance refers only to the original vendors and not their successors in title. Upon the death of the vendors, the covenants are discharged and do not become absolute prohibitions. Ms. Azam is not entitled to enforce the covenants, and there is no implied term that consent should not be unreasonably withheld in paragraph 5.

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
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of the claimant; restrictive covenants discharged upon death of original vendors.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Construction of Conveyance, Assignment of Benefit, Enforceability of Covenants
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Construction of Conveyance Assignment of Benefit Enforceability of Covenants

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 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

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms. Azam is entitled to enforce the covenants in paragraphs 4 and 5
  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 vendors on the enforceability of the covenants

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement for approval or written consent in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 1967 Conveyance refers only to the original vendors and not their successors in title. Upon the death of the vendors, the covenants are discharged and do not become absolute prohibitions. Ms. Azam is not entitled to enforce the covenants, and 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 discharged upon death of original vendors.

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.