O'Toole and Cox -v- Mendonca [2009] JRC 136 (03 July 2009)

O'Toole and Cox -v- Mendonca [2009] JRC 136 (03 July 2009)

The defendant breached an unambiguous contractual restriction prohibiting parking on the common avenue and yard, and none of the defendant's justifications (necessity, discrimination, or abuse) are supported by evidence or law; therefore, a permanent injunction is warranted.

Citation
[2009] JRC 136
Parties
Plaintiff: Paul William O'Toole; Plaintiff: Lorna Mary Cox; Defendant: Gabriel Mendonca
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
permanent injunction granted
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Injunctions, Co Ownership, Breach of Contract
Property Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Injunctions Co Ownership Breach of Contract

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul William O'Toole

Plaintiff

Lorna Mary Cox

Plaintiff

Gabriel Mendonca

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the restrictive covenant by parking vehicles on the common avenue and yard
  2. 2 Whether any justification exists for the breach, including discrimination or necessity

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached an unambiguous contractual restriction prohibiting parking on the common avenue and yard, and none of the defendant's justifications (necessity, discrimination, or abuse) are supported by evidence or law; therefore, a permanent injunction is warranted.

Court Disposition

permanent injunction granted

Orders

  • Permanent injunction restraining the defendant and/or his agents from parking vehicles on the avenue and yard in common.
  • Defendant warned to comply forthwith on pain of contempt, with possible fine or imprisonment for breach.