Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2002] 48 EG 140 (CS) | Commercial Leases ; 17(1) January 2003, 705-706(2) | High Court (Chancery Division) ; [2002] EWHC 2443 (Ch)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: ChD 18 November 2002. Due to a restrictive covenant the claimant (C) was prevented from building more than one house on each plot. The defendant (M) also contended that there should be an absolute restriction on building as the party named in the covenant no longer existed to give the required approval for any development on the plots. C claimed that the building restriction was discharged on the breakdown of the machinery for seeking approval, having also claimed that on a true construction of the user covenant, it was free to build more than one house on each plot. Held. The first declaration was allowed but the second declaration was refused, supported by the observation of "Dobbs v Linford" 1953.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS66116 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 120656-1001 |
ChD 18 November 2002. Due to a restrictive covenant the claimant (C) was prevented from building more than one house on each plot. The defendant (M) also contended that there should be an absolute restriction on building as the party named in the covenant no longer existed to give the required approval for any development on the plots. C claimed that the building restriction was discharged on the breakdown of the machinery for seeking approval, having also claimed that on a true construction of the user covenant, it was free to build more than one house on each plot. Held. The first declaration was allowed but the second declaration was refused, supported by the observation of "Dobbs v Linford" 1953.