Windsor-Clive & Ors v Rees & Anor
The rights of entry under the tenancy agreements are limited to entry for reasonable purposes connected with the landlord-tenant relationship, primarily inspection and observation, and do not extend to intrusive activities such as digging or significant interference with possession. There is no strong probability of future unlawful obstruction by the defendants, nor risk of irremediable harm, so a final injunction is not warranted.
- Parties
- Claimant: The Honourable Ivor Edward Other Windsor-Clive, Earl of Plymouth; Claimant: Lady Emma Windsor-Clive; Claimant: The Honourable David Justin Windsor-Clive; Defendant: Jenkin Thomas Rees; Defendant: Phillip Rees
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 April 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Final Judgment After Trial of Claim for Permanent Injunction
- Outcome
- Claim for permanent injunction refused; declarations to be made as to scope of rights of entry; costs and consequential matters reserved.
- Legal Topics
- Construction of Lease Provisions, Rights of Entry, Quiet Enjoyment, Derogation From Grant, Injunctions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Honourable Ivor Edward Other Windsor-Clive, Earl of Plymouth
Claimant
Lady Emma Windsor-Clive
Claimant
The Honourable David Justin Windsor-Clive
Claimant
Jenkin Thomas Rees
Defendant
Phillip Rees
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial of Claim for Permanent Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Proper construction of landlord's rights of entry under tenancy agreements
- 2 Whether the landlord is entitled to an injunction restraining interference with rights of entry
- 3 Scope of permissible activities under rights of entry clauses
Ratio Decidendi
The rights of entry under the tenancy agreements are limited to entry for reasonable purposes connected with the landlord-tenant relationship, primarily inspection and observation, and do not extend to intrusive activities such as digging or significant interference with possession. There is no strong probability of future unlawful obstruction by the defendants, nor risk of irremediable harm, so a final injunction is not warranted.
Court Disposition
Claim for permanent injunction refused; declarations to be made as to scope of rights of entry; costs and consequential matters reserved.
Orders
- No final injunction granted.
- Declarations to be made reflecting the scope of the claimants' rights of entry as construed in the judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment