Jones & Anor v Oven & Anor

Jones & Anor v Oven & Anor

The restrictive covenants given by the appellants in 2002-2003 apply to the Strip upon its re-transfer to them, either by construction of the phrase 'retained land' or by implication of a term necessary for business efficacy. The respondents, as successors in title, have the benefit of these covenants, and the 2005 Transfer does not prevent their operation.

Parties
Appellant (claimant): Patricia Ann Jones; Appellant (claimant): David Jones; Respondent (defendant): Timothy Paul Oven; Respondent (defendant): Ruth Oven
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Land Transfer, Construction of Contracts, Implied Terms
Property Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Land Transfer Construction of Contracts Implied Terms

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Ann Jones

Appellant (claimant)

David Jones

Appellant (claimant)

Timothy Paul Oven

Respondent (defendant)

Ruth Oven

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants given by the appellants in 2002-2003 apply to a strip of land to be re-transferred to them under a 2005 transfer
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have the benefit of the restrictive covenants
  3. 3 Whether the construction or implication of terms extends the covenants to the strip upon re-transfer

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants given by the appellants in 2002-2003 apply to the Strip upon its re-transfer to them, either by construction of the phrase 'retained land' or by implication of a term necessary for business efficacy. The respondents, as successors in title, have the benefit of these covenants, and the 2005 Transfer does not prevent their operation.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The restrictive covenants will burden the Strip upon its transfer to the appellants.