000			01614cab a22002055a 4500
001			L142564
008			080225e20070615xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u142564
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aCity Inn (Jersey) Limited v Ten Trinity Square Limited _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_a[2007] EWHC 1829 (Ch), 15 June 2007. Demonstrates the requirement for restrictive covenants to specify the party who is responsible for its enforcement. The applicant (C) applied for a declaration that it could redevelop its property without obtaining consent from the respondent (T). C sought approval from the previous holder of the title but not from T. C argued that although T was the owner of the property, it did not benefit directly from the covenants as the covenant itself did not contain reference to a successor in title. "Held": There was no aspect of the case which required deviation from the literal wording of the covenant. While the covenant referred to successors in title, it did not do so in relation to the requirement of approval of developments. There could have been a commercial purpose intended in that any subsequent purchaser could have required the covenant to include the new purchaser be modified upon transference. Application granted.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aCITY INN (JERSEY) V TEN TRINITY SQUARE
650	2	4	_aMAHON V SIMS
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/1829.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c79867 _d79867