Fit Kitchen Limited & Anor v Relx Group UK Plc & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1954 (KB)
Hughes Family Property Co Ltd & Anor v No Defendant
9 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2288 (Ch)
High Court
Two companies wanted to remove a building restriction on their land without suing anyone. The judge said they had to sue their neighbors first because the neighbors might want to keep the restriction. The companies can still sue, but only if they also sue the neighbors or the neighbors agree it's okay.
Key Facts
- •Two limited companies (Claimants) applied to make a CPR Part 8 claim without naming a defendant under CPR rule 8.2A.
- •The claim sought a declaration that a restrictive covenant on their land (28 Redwalls Meadow) was not binding.
- •The covenant, from a 1977 conveyance, prohibited building on the Claimants' land.
- •The Claimants argued that the original covenantee (Chantreys) did not own the benefiting land when the covenant was created, therefore the covenant is invalid.
- •Chantreys no longer owns any relevant land and does not oppose the claim.
- •The Claimants did not include the owners of neighboring properties (21-27 Redwalls Meadow) as defendants.
Legal Principles
CPR rule 8.2A allows claims without naming a defendant under certain circumstances, potentially requiring prior permission.
CPR rule 8.2A
Section 84(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 allows the court to declare whether land is affected by a restriction.
Law of Property Act 1925, section 84(2)
A mortgagee's power of sale doesn't need to be expressly shown for a purchaser to obtain good title (Law of Property Act 1925, section 104).
Law of Property Act 1925, section 104
Court decisions generally only bind parties to the case, with exceptions like representation orders.
Vandervell Trustees Ltd v White [1971] AC 912
Declaratory relief is a discretionary remedy (CPR rule 40.20).
CPR rule 40.20; Bank of New York Mellon v Essar Steel India Ltd [2018] EWHC 3177 (Ch)
It is open to a claimant to issue a Part 8 claim without joining a defendant in some cases not covered by a specific practice direction (Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Persons Having an Immediate Right etc [2021] 1 WLR 3832).
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Persons Having an Immediate Right etc [2021] 1 WLR 3832
Outcomes
The application to proceed without a defendant was dismissed.
The neighboring landowners (Nos 21-27) have an interest in the covenant's validity and should be made defendants unless they confirm they don't oppose the claim.