Oceanic Village Ltd v United Attractions Ltd
Series: Weekly Law Reports ; [2000] 2 WLR 476-496(19)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: ChD 9 December 1999. By a lease granted in 1998 the landlord demised part of a building to the claimant (O) for a term of 20 years for use as a gift shop. By clause 4.6 of the lease the landlord covenanted with O that it would 'not permit' any other gift shop to be operated in the building. Subsequently the landlord granted to the defendant (U) a lease of another part of the building which contained no restriction on establishing a gift shop there. When U refused to give O an undertaking not to operate a gift shop, O sought an injunction to restrain U from acting in breach of the covenant in clause 4.6 on the basis that the clause was directly enforceable by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 s3(5), or since the covenant was not registrable under the Land Registration Act 1925 s50(1), the doctrines of actual and constructive notice applied and the defendant having had notice of clause 4.6 was bound by the covenant. Held, application dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS62093 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 104854-1001 |
ChD 9 December 1999. By a lease granted in 1998 the landlord demised part of a building to the claimant (O) for a term of 20 years for use as a gift shop. By clause 4.6 of the lease the landlord covenanted with O that it would 'not permit' any other gift shop to be operated in the building. Subsequently the landlord granted to the defendant (U) a lease of another part of the building which contained no restriction on establishing a gift shop there. When U refused to give O an undertaking not to operate a gift shop, O sought an injunction to restrain U from acting in breach of the covenant in clause 4.6 on the basis that the clause was directly enforceable by virtue of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 s3(5), or since the covenant was not registrable under the Land Registration Act 1925 s50(1), the doctrines of actual and constructive notice applied and the defendant having had notice of clause 4.6 was bound by the covenant. Held, application dismissed.