Case news: Sims v Mahon
Language: English Series: Property Week ; (70)38 23 September 2005, 77(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: 8 June 2005. This case (OLD, [2005 EG 158) involves a restrictive covenant on land sold to neighbours. Mr and Mrs Houghton sold the Sims the land in 1995, with a covenant that the land was to be used as a private garden, with only a greenhouse, shed or domestic garage erected on the plot. S proposed to build a double garage and store, and H had no objection to this. H subsequently sold their house to M who objected to the proposed development. At the initial hearing it was proposed that S needed the consent of M rather than H. "Held:" the judge decided that although the covenant could be interpreted that H had to provide consent, he considered that the future owners, including at this time M, were als intended to have benefit of the covenant. However it was ruled that M could only refuse on the grounds that any reasonable neighbour would also have refused.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L131139 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 131139-1001 |
8 June 2005. This case (OLD, [2005 EG 158) involves a restrictive covenant on land sold to neighbours. Mr and Mrs Houghton sold the Sims the land in 1995, with a covenant that the land was to be used as a private garden, with only a greenhouse, shed or domestic garage erected on the plot. S proposed to build a double garage and store, and H had no objection to this. H subsequently sold their house to M who objected to the proposed development. At the initial hearing it was proposed that S needed the consent of M rather than H. "Held:" the judge decided that although the covenant could be interpreted that H had to provide consent, he considered that the future owners, including at this time M, were als intended to have benefit of the covenant. However it was ruled that M could only refuse on the grounds that any reasonable neighbour would also have refused.