0
In proceedings brought under section 84(2) of the LPA 1925, the court held that the erection of a replacement house at Sandbanks, Poole would not breach restrictive covenants benefitting a neighbour’s property.
The judgment is of interest because it: (1) explains (for the first time) why a restrained approach to the interpretation of restrictive covenants is normally appropriate; (2) provides a reminder of why the ambit of estoppel by contract/estoppel by deed is limited (an unexpressed assumption underlying contractual drafting being insufficient to create such estoppels); and (3) upheld a Master's decision to award the Claimants their costs in a departure from the usual order of "no order as to costs" (being, perhaps, the first such order made post-CPR).
Tom Weekes KC acted for the successful respondent.
The judgment can be found here.
