000			01909cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS68656
008			050126n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128619
041			_aeng
245			_aBlumenthal v Church Commissioners for England
260			_c2004
520			_a[2004] EWCA Civ 1688, 13 December 2004. Discusses when a convenant is a positive obligation and therefore outside the LT's juridsdiction. C appealed against a decision that the LT had jurisdiction to determine an application by B to modify user covenants in a lease, which specified that certain parts of a building had to be occupied by a particular organisation together with accommodation for their housekeeper employee. C argued that the covenants were not restrictive covenants and outside the LT's jurisdiction under the Law of Property Act 1925 s84. B contended that construing the covenants as positive obligations led to an unreasonable result making her in breach of the covenant when the organisation's tenancy expired. "Held": the covenants should not be construed as a positive obligation rendering the tenant in breach of covenant in circumstances which the tenant could not prevent. The parties would have made it clear when creating the user covenants if that result was intended. The covenant was restrictive and therefore the LT had jurisdiction to deal with B's application. Appeal dismissed.
590			_aABS
650			_aBLUMENTHAL V CHURCH COMMISSIONERS FOR ENGLAND
650			_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
650			_aRE BLYTHE CORPORATION'S APPLICATION
650			_aWESTMINSTER LBC V DUKE OF WESTMINSTER
650			_aTULK V MOXHAY
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-LEASEHOLD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-COMMERCIAL LEASES
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1688.html _zView the decision at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c74761 _d74761