Karen Reeve v Aidan Gregory McDonagh & Anor

Karen Reeve v Aidan Gregory McDonagh & Anor

The 1958 Covenant, on its true construction, prohibits only additional buildings and does not restrict replacement or extension of Rose Cottage; no estoppel arises from the 1988 Deed as there was no clear, unambiguous agreement as to the scope of the covenant; costs follow the usual rule for hostile litigation, not the rule of practice under section 84(2) LPA.

Parties
Appellant: Karen Reeve; Respondent: Aidan Gregory McDonagh; Respondent: Tamara Susan Juliet McDonagh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interpretation of Contracts, Estoppel, Costs
Property Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Interpretation of Contracts Estoppel Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Reeve

Appellant

Aidan Gregory McDonagh

Respondent

Tamara Susan Juliet McDonagh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1958 Covenant prevents replacement or extension of Rose Cottage
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents are estopped from denying the scope of the 1958 Covenant
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order under section 84(2) Law of Property Act 1925

Ratio Decidendi

The 1958 Covenant, on its true construction, prohibits only additional buildings and does not restrict replacement or extension of Rose Cottage; no estoppel arises from the 1988 Deed as there was no clear, unambiguous agreement as to the scope of the covenant; costs follow the usual rule for hostile litigation, not the rule of practice under section 84(2) LPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The 1958 Covenant does not prevent the Respondents from carrying out the Proposed Development.
  • No estoppel arises from the 1988 Deed.