City Inn (Jersey) Ltd v Ten Trinity Square Ltd [2007] EWHC 1829 (Ch) (15 June 2007)

City Inn (Jersey) Ltd v Ten Trinity Square Ltd [2007] EWHC 1829 (Ch) (15 June 2007)

On the true construction of the Transfer, the term 'the Transferor' in the relevant covenants refers only to the Port of London Authority and not to its successors in title. The drafting shows deliberate use of the phrase 'and its successors in title' where intended, and its omission in the operative parts is decisive. There is no imperative to depart from the literal wording, and the authorities relied on by the Defendant are distinguishable.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1829 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: City Inn (Jersey) Limited; Defendant: Ten Trinity Square Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (declaratory Relief) / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Declaration granted in favour of the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Construction of Deeds, Successors in Title, Consent Under Covenants
Property Law Real Estate Restrictive Covenants Construction of Deeds Successors in Title Consent Under Covenants

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City Inn (Jersey) Limited

Claimant

Ten Trinity Square Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (declaratory Relief) / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the term 'the Transferor' in the restrictive covenants requires consent from the original covenantee (Port of London Authority) or includes successors in title such as the Defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

On the true construction of the Transfer, the term 'the Transferor' in the relevant covenants refers only to the Port of London Authority and not to its successors in title. The drafting shows deliberate use of the phrase 'and its successors in title' where intended, and its omission in the operative parts is decisive. There is no imperative to depart from the literal wording, and the authorities relied on by the Defendant are distinguishable.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted in favour of the Claimant.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Defendant has no right to insist that the proposed external alterations or additions and change of use by the Claimant to Mariner House should be subject to the Defendant's consent.