89 Holland Park (Management) Ltd & Ors v Hicks

89 Holland Park (Management) Ltd & Ors v Hicks

The benefit of the covenants in clauses 2(b) and 3 of the 1968 Deed passed to the successors in title of Brigadier Radford and are enforceable by the Claimants. Clause 2(b) is binding on the Defendant as a restrictive covenant, and the requirement for approval or consent under clauses 2(b) and 3 is subject to an implied proviso that such approval or consent shall not be withheld unreasonably. The covenants are enforceable by all Claimants, including lessees, by virtue of section 78.

Parties
Claimant: 89 Holland Park (Management) Limited; Claimant: 89 Holland Park (Flat 1) Limited; Claimant: Marc Nicholas Jonas; Claimant: Dr Michael Beverley McKie; Claimant: Maria Paloma Letemendia; Claimant: Andrew Lawson Dell; Claimant: Jennifer Simone Dell; Defendant: Ms Sophie Louise Hicks; Original Party: Brigadier Walter Radford; Original Party: Mrs France de Froberville; Previous Owner: Miss Lange
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Declarations granted in favour of the Claimants.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Benefit and Burden of Covenants, Implied Terms, Enforceability by Successors, Planning Permission
Property Law Land Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Benefit and Burden of Covenants Implied Terms Enforceability by Successors Planning Permission

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

89 Holland Park (Management) Limited

Claimant

89 Holland Park (Flat 1) Limited

Claimant

Marc Nicholas Jonas

Claimant

Dr Michael Beverley McKie

Claimant

Maria Paloma Letemendia

Claimant

Andrew Lawson Dell

Claimant

Jennifer Simone Dell

Claimant

Ms Sophie Louise Hicks

Defendant

Brigadier Walter Radford

Original Party

Mrs France de Froberville

Original Party

Miss Lange

Previous Owner

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the Claimants entitled to enforce the covenants in clauses 2(b) and 3 of the 1968 Deed?
  2. 2 Is clause 2(b) binding on the Defendant?
  3. 3 Are clauses 2(b) and 3 subject to an implied proviso that approval or consent would not be unreasonably withheld?

Ratio Decidendi

The benefit of the covenants in clauses 2(b) and 3 of the 1968 Deed passed to the successors in title of Brigadier Radford and are enforceable by the Claimants. Clause 2(b) is binding on the Defendant as a restrictive covenant, and the requirement for approval or consent under clauses 2(b) and 3 is subject to an implied proviso that such approval or consent shall not be withheld unreasonably. The covenants are enforceable by all Claimants, including lessees, by virtue of section 78.

Court Disposition

Declarations granted in favour of the Claimants.

Orders

  • Claimants entitled to benefit of clauses 2(b) and 3 of the 1968 Deed.
  • Defendant bound by clause 2(b) and clause 3 of the 1968 Deed.