Image from Google Jackets

Celsteel Ltd and others v Alton House Holdings Ltd and another (No 2)

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 281(6327) 28 March 1987, 1446-1448(3)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 18 December 1986. Appeal by lessee, Mobil Oil Co Ltd (MO), from a decision in favour of the lessor, Alton House Holdings, raising, in a second installment of litigation, a question of the construction of a covenant of quiet enjoyment in a lease. Alton House were freeholders of a driveway leased to MO which had established a petrol filling station and proposed to set up a car wash adjacent to flats whose tenants had garages in the driveway over which rights of way were exercised. The car wash would reduce the right of way to the tenants. The previous judge accepted there would be interference with the right of way and granted an injunction against the defendant and MO. MO contended the injunction constituted a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. In proceedings giving rise to the present appeal the judge rejected this contention holding that the tenants of the flats and garages did not "claim under" the freeholders. MO appealed. CA considered the previous judge had reached th
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS37613 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 5579-1001

CA 18 December 1986. Appeal by lessee, Mobil Oil Co Ltd (MO), from a decision in favour of the lessor, Alton House Holdings, raising, in a second installment of litigation, a question of the construction of a covenant of quiet enjoyment in a lease. Alton House were freeholders of a driveway leased to MO which had established a petrol filling station and proposed to set up a car wash adjacent to flats whose tenants had garages in the driveway over which rights of way were exercised. The car wash would reduce the right of way to the tenants. The previous judge accepted there would be interference with the right of way and granted an injunction against the defendant and MO. MO contended the injunction constituted a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. In proceedings giving rise to the present appeal the judge rejected this contention holding that the tenants of the flats and garages did not "claim under" the freeholders. MO appealed. CA considered the previous judge had reached th