Mayor & Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London & Ors v Intercede 1765 Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 1691 (Ch) (27 July 2005)

Mayor & Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London & Ors v Intercede 1765 Ltd & Anor [2005] EWHC 1691 (Ch) (27 July 2005)

The 1928 Deed, when construed as a whole and in light of the attached drawing, imposed a stepped height restriction defined by the 75° angle from the pediment, not a uniform horizontal limit of 108'3". The defendants' proposed development did not breach the Deed's restriction. The claimants' action was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1691 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: THE MAYOR AND COMMONALTY AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONDON; Claimant: THE WARDENS AND COMMONALTY OF THE MYSTERY OF MERCERS IN THE CITY OF LONDON; Defendant: INTERCEDE 1765 LIMITED; Defendant: INTERCEDE 1766 LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interpretation of Deeds, Building Height Restrictions, Remedies (injunctions and Damages)
Property Law Land Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Interpretation of Deeds Building Height Restrictions Remedies (injunctions and Damages)

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE MAYOR AND COMMONALTY AND CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF LONDON

Claimant

THE WARDENS AND COMMONALTY OF THE MYSTERY OF MERCERS IN THE CITY OF LONDON

Claimant

INTERCEDE 1765 LIMITED

Defendant

INTERCEDE 1766 LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the 1928 Deed regarding building height restrictions
  2. 2 Whether the proposed development breaches the Deed's height restriction
  3. 3 Entitlement to injunctive relief if breach established

Ratio Decidendi

The 1928 Deed, when construed as a whole and in light of the attached drawing, imposed a stepped height restriction defined by the 75° angle from the pediment, not a uniform horizontal limit of 108'3". The defendants' proposed development did not breach the Deed's restriction. The claimants' action was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed