Bath Rugby Ltd v Caroline Greenwood

Bath Rugby Ltd v Caroline Greenwood

The Court held that the restrictive covenants in the 1922 conveyance were annexed to the Bathwick Estate and benefit the land, as the intention to annex was clear and the land to be benefited was sufficiently identified.

Parties
Claimant/1st Appellant: Bath Rugby Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Caroline Greenwood; Defendant/respondent: David Arthur Greenwood; Defendant/respondent: Edwin John Horlick; Defendant/respondent: Eric Newbiggin; Defendant/respondent: Savio Anil De Sequeria; Defendant/respondent: Peter Francis Sherwin; Defendant/respondent: 77 Great Pulteney Street Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Godfrey Douglas White; Intervener/2nd Appellant: Bath Recreation Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Annexation, Benefit of Land, Conveyancing, Trusts
Property Law Trusts Law Restrictive Covenants Annexation Benefit of Land Conveyancing Trusts

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

Parties

Bath Rugby Ltd

Claimant/1st Appellant

Caroline Greenwood

Defendant/respondent

David Arthur Greenwood

Defendant/respondent

Edwin John Horlick

Defendant/respondent

Eric Newbiggin

Defendant/respondent

Savio Anil De Sequeria

Defendant/respondent

Peter Francis Sherwin

Defendant/respondent

77 Great Pulteney Street Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Godfrey Douglas White

Defendant/respondent

Bath Recreation Ltd

Intervener/2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants in the 1922 conveyance are annexed to the Bathwick Estate and benefit the land.
  2. 2 Whether the land to be benefited is sufficiently identified.
  3. 3 Whether the intention to annex is established.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the restrictive covenants in the 1922 conveyance were annexed to the Bathwick Estate and benefit the land, as the intention to annex was clear and the land to be benefited was sufficiently identified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Restrictive covenants in the 1922 conveyance are annexed to the Bathwick Estate and benefit the appellants' land.
  • Costs to be determined.