Case news: (1) Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of London (2) Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery of Mercers in the City of London v (1)Intercede 1765 Ltd (2) Intercede 1766 Ltd
Language: English Series: Property Week ; 70(36) 9 September 2005, 67(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: This case ([2005] EWHC 1691 (Ch), [2005] NPC 103) examined and interpreted a deed to decide on the height limit of a development. At the time of construction in the 1920s of the Lloyds building, a deed was entered into relating to both the Lloyds building and the Royal Exchange opposite. Following its sale in 2002, the Lloyds building was to be developed together with adjacent sites. Planning permission was obtained and the owner I entered into negotiations with C the owners of the Royal Exchange to modify the existing deed. Development works commenced but negotiations broke down. Now committed to following through with the planned development, I claimed that its plans did not exceed the height restriction. "Held:" that the development was not in breach of the deed. The court noted that some parts of the building could be higher, if stepped back from the front, and that elements of the original building were higher than stated in the deed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L131036 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 131036-1001 |
This case ([2005] EWHC 1691 (Ch), [2005] NPC 103) examined and interpreted a deed to decide on the height limit of a development. At the time of construction in the 1920s of the Lloyds building, a deed was entered into relating to both the Lloyds building and the Royal Exchange opposite. Following its sale in 2002, the Lloyds building was to be developed together with adjacent sites. Planning permission was obtained and the owner I entered into negotiations with C the owners of the Royal Exchange to modify the existing deed. Development works commenced but negotiations broke down. Now committed to following through with the planned development, I claimed that its plans did not exceed the height restriction. "Held:" that the development was not in breach of the deed. The court noted that some parts of the building could be higher, if stepped back from the front, and that elements of the original building were higher than stated in the deed.