Morrells Of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United FC Ltd & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 226 (21 July 2000)

Morrells Of Oxford Ltd v Oxford United FC Ltd & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 226 (21 July 2000)

The contrast between clause 2 and clause 3 of the 1962 conveyance is too stark to ignore; reading into clause 3 words binding successors in title would be inconsistent with the purport of the instrument. Therefore, the covenant in clause 3(a) is personal and does not bind successors in title under section 79 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 226
Parties
Claimant: Morrells of Oxford Ltd; First Defendant: Oxford United FC Ltd; Second Defendant: Oxford City Council; Third Defendant: Firoka (Oxford Hotels) Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Firoka (Oxford Leisure) Ltd; Fifth Defendant: Firoka (Oxford United Stadium) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Expedited Appeal From Summary Judgment (part 24 Cpr)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Successors in Title, Section 79 Law of Property Act 1925, Construction of Covenants, Summary Judgment, Injunctions
Property Law Land Law Civil Procedure Restrictive Covenants Successors in Title Section 79 Law of Property Act 1925 Construction of Covenants Summary Judgment +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morrells of Oxford Ltd

Claimant

Oxford United FC Ltd

First Defendant

Oxford City Council

Second Defendant

Firoka (Oxford Hotels) Ltd

Third Defendant

Firoka (Oxford Leisure) Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Firoka (Oxford United Stadium) Ltd

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Expedited Appeal From Summary Judgment (part 24 Cpr)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant in clause 3(a) of the 1962 conveyance binds successors in title under section 79 of the Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the covenant is personal or runs with the land
  3. 3 Whether a contrary intention is expressed so as to exclude the statutory presumption under section 79

Ratio Decidendi

The contrast between clause 2 and clause 3 of the 1962 conveyance is too stark to ignore; reading into clause 3 words binding successors in title would be inconsistent with the purport of the instrument. Therefore, the covenant in clause 3(a) is personal and does not bind successors in title under section 79 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with appellant to pay the costs of each respondent.
  • Leave to appeal to the House of Lords granted.