Blumenthal v Church Commissioners for England
Blumenthal v Church Commissioners for England
- 2004
[2004] EWCA Civ 1688, 13 December 2004. Discusses when a convenant is a positive obligation and therefore outside the LT's juridsdiction. C appealed against a decision that the LT had jurisdiction to determine an application by B to modify user covenants in a lease, which specified that certain parts of a building had to be occupied by a particular organisation together with accommodation for their housekeeper employee. C argued that the covenants were not restrictive covenants and outside the LT's jurisdiction under the Law of Property Act 1925 s84. B contended that construing the covenants as positive obligations led to an unreasonable result making her in breach of the covenant when the organisation's tenancy expired. "Held": the covenants should not be construed as a positive obligation rendering the tenant in breach of covenant in circumstances which the tenant could not prevent. The parties would have made it clear when creating the user covenants if that result was intended. The covenant was restrictive and therefore the LT had jurisdiction to deal with B's application. Appeal dismissed.
BLUMENTHAL V CHURCH COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
RE BLYTHE CORPORATION'S APPLICATION
WESTMINSTER LBC V DUKE OF WESTMINSTER
TULK V MOXHAY
[2004] EWCA Civ 1688, 13 December 2004. Discusses when a convenant is a positive obligation and therefore outside the LT's juridsdiction. C appealed against a decision that the LT had jurisdiction to determine an application by B to modify user covenants in a lease, which specified that certain parts of a building had to be occupied by a particular organisation together with accommodation for their housekeeper employee. C argued that the covenants were not restrictive covenants and outside the LT's jurisdiction under the Law of Property Act 1925 s84. B contended that construing the covenants as positive obligations led to an unreasonable result making her in breach of the covenant when the organisation's tenancy expired. "Held": the covenants should not be construed as a positive obligation rendering the tenant in breach of covenant in circumstances which the tenant could not prevent. The parties would have made it clear when creating the user covenants if that result was intended. The covenant was restrictive and therefore the LT had jurisdiction to deal with B's application. Appeal dismissed.
BLUMENTHAL V CHURCH COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
RE BLYTHE CORPORATION'S APPLICATION
WESTMINSTER LBC V DUKE OF WESTMINSTER
TULK V MOXHAY