Key Facts
- •AHGR Limited (appellant) appealed a decision concerning the interpretation of "live/work" in a 999-year lease of a flat.
- •The lease contained a covenant restricting use to a "live/work" unit as per planning permission.
- •Lower courts interpreted "live/work" as "live and/or work", dismissing claims of breach of covenant.
- •The appeal concerned the interpretation of "live/work" and the definition of "work" in that context.
- •The planning permission for the unit was granted in 2001, and the lease was granted in 2002.
- •The planning permission did not explicitly define "live/work", and a supplementary planning guidance (SPG) document was debated as to its relevance.
- •The respondents, Luke and Peter Kane-Laverack, used the premises for residential purposes and some freelance work.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of covenants in leases and planning permissions should be objective, based on what a reasonable reader would understand.
Cherry Tree Investments v Landmain [2012] EWCA Civ 736; Trump International Golf v The Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74; Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Parks Authority [2022] UKSC 30
Extrinsic materials (documents not incorporated into the planning permission) should be considered cautiously, particularly if not publicly available.
Cherry Tree Investments v Landmain [2012] EWCA Civ 736; Trump International Golf v The Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74; UBB Waste Essex v Essex County Council [2019] EWHC 1924 (Admin)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
"Live/work" was interpreted as "live and/or work" due to the ambiguity of the phrase, the lack of subdivision in the planning permission, and the potential for criminal proceedings for breach. The court found that even considering the SPG and other documents, the interpretation of 'live and/or work' remained consistent.
The definition of "work" was not determined.
The court deemed it unnecessary to define "work" given the "live and/or work" interpretation of the lease.