Coventry School Foundation v Whitehouse & Ors [2012] EWHC 2351 (Ch) (10 August 2012)

Coventry School Foundation v Whitehouse & Ors [2012] EWHC 2351 (Ch) (10 August 2012)

The restrictive covenant is enforceable by the defendants as the benefiting land is easily ascertainable from the 1931 Conveyance and supporting evidence. However, the proposed development and use of the site for a school, including associated traffic and noise, does not constitute a breach of the covenant as it does not amount to a 'noisy pursuit or occupation' nor does it constitute a nuisance or annoyance within the meaning of the covenant when judged by the standard of reasonable, sensible persons.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2351 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Trustees of the Coventry School Foundation; Defendant: Steven Whitehouse; Defendant: Mervyn Thomas Lewis; Defendant: Stephen Tate; Defendant: Anthony Keith Griffiths
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (declarations Under S.84(2) Law of Property Act 1925) / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Declarations refused in respect of non-enforceability; declaration granted that the proposed development and use do not constitute a breach of the covenant.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Annexation of Benefit, Construction of Covenants, Declaratory Relief
Property Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Annexation of Benefit Construction of Covenants Declaratory Relief

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trustees of the Coventry School Foundation

Claimant

Steven Whitehouse

Defendant

Mervyn Thomas Lewis

Defendant

Stephen Tate

Defendant

Anthony Keith Griffiths

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (declarations Under S.84(2) Law of Property Act 1925) / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant in the 1931 Conveyance is enforceable by the defendants or any other party
  2. 2 Whether the proposed development and use of the site for a school would constitute a breach of the restrictive covenant

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenant is enforceable by the defendants as the benefiting land is easily ascertainable from the 1931 Conveyance and supporting evidence. However, the proposed development and use of the site for a school, including associated traffic and noise, does not constitute a breach of the covenant as it does not amount to a 'noisy pursuit or occupation' nor does it constitute a nuisance or annoyance within the meaning of the covenant when judged by the standard of reasonable, sensible persons.

Court Disposition

Declarations refused in respect of non-enforceability; declaration granted that the proposed development and use do not constitute a breach of the covenant.

Orders

  • The first declaration sought by the claimants (that the covenant is unenforceable) is refused.
  • The second declaration sought by the claimants (that the proposed development and use do not constitute a breach of the covenant) is granted.