Jones & Anor v Oven & Anor

Jones & Anor v Oven & Anor

The phrase 'retained land' in the restrictive covenants is to be construed as including the Strip once re-transferred to the claimants, or alternatively a term is implied to that effect, to give commercial and practical coherence to the transaction. The defendants are in breach for failing to transfer the Strip from February 2012. The claimants are entitled to specific performance and nominal damages, but not substantive damages due to lack of proven intention to establish a commercial livery business.

Parties
Claimant: Patricia Ann Jones; Claimant: David Jones; Defendant: Timothy Paul Oven; Defendant: Ruth Oven
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Declaration as to construction, order for specific performance, nominal damages awarded.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Specific Performance, Breach of Contract, Construction of Contracts, Implied Terms
Property Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Specific Performance Breach of Contract 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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Ann Jones

Claimant

David Jones

Claimant

Timothy Paul Oven

Defendant

Ruth Oven

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Do the restrictive covenants entered into in 2003 apply to the Strip once transferred to the claimants?
  2. 2 Should the court order specific performance of the covenant for the retransfer of the Strip?
  3. 3 Should specific performance only be ordered on terms that the claimants agree to use the Strip in accordance with the restrictive covenants of 2003?

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'retained land' in the restrictive covenants is to be construed as including the Strip once re-transferred to the claimants, or alternatively a term is implied to that effect, to give commercial and practical coherence to the transaction. The defendants are in breach for failing to transfer the Strip from February 2012. The claimants are entitled to specific performance and nominal damages, but not substantive damages due to lack of proven intention to establish a commercial livery business.

Court Disposition

Declaration as to construction, order for specific performance, nominal damages awarded.

Orders

  • Declaration as to the true construction of 'retained land'.
  • Order for specific performance of the covenant to transfer the Strip.