Restrictive covenants: recent cases clarify interpretation and drafting
Restrictive covenants: recent cases clarify interpretation and drafting
- 2005
- The In-House Lawyer (129) April 2005, 31-33(3) .
Looks at four recent cases that help clarify the law relating to restrictive covenants. Sets out how a restrictive covenant works and what makes it enforceable. "Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister" (Abs67766) clarified identification of the land that benefits from the covenant; two cases. "Martin v David Wilson Homes Ltd" (Abs68379) and "Jarvis Homes Ltd v Marshall" (Abs67981), both concerned a covenant restricting the use of a property to a private residence only and its interpretation. "Mortimer v Bailey" (Abs68661) considered whether the person benefiting from a restrictive covenant was entitled to an injunction to demolish unauthorised works.
CREST NICHOLSON RESIDENTIAL (SOUTH) LTD V MCALLISTER
MARTIN V DAVID WILSON HOMES LTD
JARVIS HOMES LTD V MARSHALL AND ANOTHER
MORTIMER AND ANOTHER V BAILEY AND ANOTHER
Looks at four recent cases that help clarify the law relating to restrictive covenants. Sets out how a restrictive covenant works and what makes it enforceable. "Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister" (Abs67766) clarified identification of the land that benefits from the covenant; two cases. "Martin v David Wilson Homes Ltd" (Abs68379) and "Jarvis Homes Ltd v Marshall" (Abs67981), both concerned a covenant restricting the use of a property to a private residence only and its interpretation. "Mortimer v Bailey" (Abs68661) considered whether the person benefiting from a restrictive covenant was entitled to an injunction to demolish unauthorised works.
CREST NICHOLSON RESIDENTIAL (SOUTH) LTD V MCALLISTER
MARTIN V DAVID WILSON HOMES LTD
JARVIS HOMES LTD V MARSHALL AND ANOTHER
MORTIMER AND ANOTHER V BAILEY AND ANOTHER