Mayor & Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London & Ors v Intercede 1765 Ltd & Anor

Mayor & Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London & Ors v Intercede 1765 Ltd & Anor

The Deed and its attached drawing, construed as a whole, imposed a stepped height restriction defined by the building line and 75° angle shown on the drawing, not a uniform horizontal restriction at 108’3”. The proposed development did not breach the restriction imposed by the Deed.

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
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interpretation of Deeds, Building Height Restrictions
Property Law Land Law Restrictive Covenants Interpretation of Deeds Building Height Restrictions

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 3 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

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the true construction of the height restriction imposed by the 1928 Deed?
  2. 2 Does the proposed development by IVG infringe the height restriction?
  3. 3 If the claimants' interpretation is correct, what (if any) injunction should be granted?

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed and its attached drawing, construed as a whole, imposed a stepped height restriction defined by the building line and 75° angle shown on the drawing, not a uniform horizontal restriction at 108’3”. The proposed development did not breach the restriction imposed by the Deed.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed