Harris v Williams-Wynne [2005] EWHC 151 (CH) (11 February 2005)

Harris v Williams-Wynne [2005] EWHC 151 (CH) (11 February 2005)

The defendant is not barred by acquiescence from claiming damages for breach of the restrictive covenant, as his conduct did not encourage the claimant to act to his detriment, and the obligation to pay for release of the covenant is not a detriment making it unconscionable for the defendant to claim damages....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 151 (CH)
Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Adrian Harris; Defendant: William Robert Charles Williams-Wynne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Claimant's claim for acquiescence and estoppel dismissed; defendant entitled to damages for breach of covenant; claimant entitled to damages for defendant's delay in transfer.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Contract, Damages, Acquiescence, Estoppel, Specific Performance
Property Law Contract Law Equity Restrictive Covenants Breach of Contract Damages Acquiescence Estoppel +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Adrian Harris

Claimant

William Robert Charles Williams-Wynne

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is entitled to damages for breach of a restrictive covenant not to erect buildings on the land
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is barred from recovering compensation by laches, acquiescence, waiver or estoppel
  3. 3 Assessment of damages for breach of contract and covenant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant is not barred by acquiescence from claiming damages for breach of the restrictive covenant, as his conduct did not encourage the claimant to act to his detriment, and the obligation to pay for release of the covenant is not a detriment making it unconscionable for the defendant to claim damages. Damages are to be assessed as the sum the parties would have agreed in a hypothetical negotiation in 1997 for release of the covenant, fixed at £8,000.

Court Disposition

Claimant's claim for acquiescence and estoppel dismissed; defendant entitled to damages for breach of covenant; claimant entitled to damages for defendant's delay in transfer.

Orders

  • Claimant to pay defendant £8,000 for breach of covenant.
  • Defendant to pay claimant damages for loss of use of money due to delay in transfer, to be calculated based on actual interest, insurance, and water rates incurred between specified dates.