London Borough Of Barnet v Barnet Football Club Holdings Ltd

London Borough Of Barnet v Barnet Football Club Holdings Ltd

The Borough failed to prove that the relevant decision-makers intended the instruments to contain an unlimited restriction; the only evidence of their intention was the delegated powers report, which authorised a 10-year limit. The requirements for rectification were not met, and the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Barnet; Defendant/respondent: Barnet Football Club Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Instruments, Mistake in Contract, Delegated Authority, Restrictive Covenants, Section 123 Local Government Act 1972
Property Law Local Government Law Contract Law Equity Rectification of Instruments Mistake in Contract Delegated Authority Restrictive Covenants +1 more

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Barnet

Claimant/appellant

Barnet Football Club Holdings Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the instruments (transfer and deed) should be rectified to remove a 10-year limit on restrictive covenants and clawback provisions
  2. 2 Whether the Borough's intention as expressed through delegated authority was for an unlimited restriction or a 10-year limit
  3. 3 Whether the Borough's claim for rectification meets the equitable requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The Borough failed to prove that the relevant decision-makers intended the instruments to contain an unlimited restriction; the only evidence of their intention was the delegated powers report, which authorised a 10-year limit. The requirements for rectification were not met, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent.
  • Appellant to pay respondent an interim payment on account of costs in the sum of £11,000.