Aidan Gregory McDonagh & Anor. v Karen Reeve
[2023] EWHC 933 (Ch)
Karen Reeve v Aidan Gregory McDonagh & Anor
1 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 439 (Ch)
High Court
Neighbours disagreed about whether a restrictive covenant stopped someone from building a new, bigger house. The court said the old agreement only stopped extra buildings, not replacing the old one. The court also decided the cost decision was fair.
Key Facts
- •Dispute over the interpretation of a 1958 covenant restricting the erection of additional buildings on a plot of land.
- •Respondents sought a declaration under section 84(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 that the covenant did not prevent them from demolishing their existing house and building a larger one.
- •The covenant was intended to protect sea views from a neighbouring property.
- •A 1988 deed modified the covenant to allow for specific extensions to the existing house.
- •Appellant argued for a strict interpretation of the covenant, preventing any new building work.
- •Respondents argued for a more flexible interpretation, allowing replacement of the existing structure.
- •The Master found in favour of the Respondents.
- •Appellant appealed the Master's decision on interpretation and costs.
Legal Principles
Principles of contractual interpretation, including consideration of the language, context, and purpose of the clause.
Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] AC 1619; C&G Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Health [1991] Ch 365; GLN (Copenhagen) Southern Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1279
Restrictive covenants are construed in a restrained manner, requiring clear words to support a broad interpretation.
GLN (Copenhagen) Southern Ltd v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1279
Estoppel by deed or contract requires a clear statement of fact and intention to be bound.
Richards v Wood [2014] EWCA Civ 327; PW&Co v Milton Gate Investments Ltd [2004] Ch 142; Spencer Bower: Reliance-Based Estoppel (5th Ed, 2017)
Costs in section 84(2) LPA applications are discretionary, with a rule of practice favouring the claimant paying costs up to a point where the defendant can decide whether to oppose.
Re Jeff’s Transfer (No.2) [1966] 1 WLR 841; In re Jeffkins’ Indentures [1965] 1 WLR 375; University of East London Higher Education Corpn v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council [2005] Ch 354
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found the Master's interpretation of the 1958 covenant to be correct, as the natural and ordinary meaning of the words did not prevent the replacement of the existing house. The court also found no estoppel, and the Master's cost decision to be within his discretion.