Coventry School Foundation v Whitehouse & Ors

Coventry School Foundation v Whitehouse & Ors

The restrictive covenant is enforceable by owners of the retained land as its benefit is easily ascertainable from the 1931 Conveyance and accessible evidence. The proposed development, specifically the operation of the school and associated traffic, noise, parking, and congestion, shall or may be or grow to be a nuisance or annoyance to covenantees, and thus constitutes a breach of the covenant. The applicant failed to prove entitlement to the declarations sought.

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
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Declarations sought by the claimant declined.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Enforceability of Covenants, Declarations Under S.84(2) Law of Property Act 1925, Annexation of Benefit, Nuisance and Annoyance, Impact of Development on Property Values
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Enforceability of Covenants Declarations Under S.84(2) Law of Property Act 1925 Annexation of Benefit Nuisance and Annoyance Impact of Development on Property Values

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 4 Authorities cited 12 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

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant is enforceable by the defendants or any other party
  2. 2 Whether the proposed development constitutes a breach of the restrictive covenant

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenant is enforceable by owners of the retained land as its benefit is easily ascertainable from the 1931 Conveyance and accessible evidence. The proposed development, specifically the operation of the school and associated traffic, noise, parking, and congestion, shall or may be or grow to be a nuisance or annoyance to covenantees, and thus constitutes a breach of the covenant. The applicant failed to prove entitlement to the declarations sought.

Court Disposition

Declarations sought by the claimant declined.