Covenant restriction
Language: English Series: Contract Journal ; 430(6545) 5 October 2005, 20(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Discusses "Mortimer v Bailey"([2004] EWCA Civ 1514, Abs68661) where M applied for a mandatory injunction to remove an extension erected by the owners of the neighbouring property, B, on the grounds that it had been built in breach of a restrictive covenant. It was held that an injunction was an appropriate remedy. M had informed B upon commencement of the building works that they did not consent to the extension, and that proceedings were contemplated. In this case, damages would not be adequate compensation.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L131277 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 131277-1001 |
Discusses "Mortimer v Bailey"([2004] EWCA Civ 1514, Abs68661) where M applied for a mandatory injunction to remove an extension erected by the owners of the neighbouring property, B, on the grounds that it had been built in breach of a restrictive covenant. It was held that an injunction was an appropriate remedy. M had informed B upon commencement of the building works that they did not consent to the extension, and that proceedings were contemplated. In this case, damages would not be adequate compensation.