Holdom v Kidd and others
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1991) 02 EG 163-164(2)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 October 1990 Appeal by the second, third and fourth defendants from cc decision granting Holdom an interlocutory injunction against the breach of a restrictive convenant affecting an area of land in Norfolk. The defendants had placed on their land 17 caravans or mobile homes . The covenant restricted use of the land to agricultural purposes only and forbade the erection of any residential buildings on it. The point at issue was the possible effect on the exercise of the judge`s discretion of the proceedings taken by the defendants with a view to obtaining planning permission for gypsies ` residential caravans and then, if such permission was obtained, to apply to the Lands Tribunal under Law of Property Act 1925 s84 for the discharge or modification of the covenant. CA held, dismissing the appeal, that a successful appeal by the defendants against the refusal of planning permission would not conclude matters as there would remain the restrictive covenant. The grant of the injun| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS43975 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 44522-1001 |
CA 19 October 1990 Appeal by the second, third and fourth defendants from cc decision granting Holdom an interlocutory injunction against the breach of a restrictive convenant affecting an area of land in Norfolk. The defendants had placed on their land 17 caravans or mobile homes . The covenant restricted use of the land to agricultural purposes only and forbade the erection of any residential buildings on it. The point at issue was the possible effect on the exercise of the judge`s discretion of the proceedings taken by the defendants with a view to obtaining planning permission for gypsies ` residential caravans and then, if such permission was obtained, to apply to the Lands Tribunal under Law of Property Act 1925 s84 for the discharge or modification of the covenant. CA held, dismissing the appeal, that a successful appeal by the defendants against the refusal of planning permission would not conclude matters as there would remain the restrictive covenant. The grant of the injun