header-logo header-logo

13 June 2013 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7564 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Litigation strikes twice

istock_000001892968large

Holland Park provides a lesson in restrictive covenants, says Andrew Francis

It is rare for High Court litigation about restrictive covenants over freehold land to affect a particular property more than once. One instance of this is the revisiting of the well-known principles in Tulk v Moxay (1848) (concerning covenants protecting Leicester Square) just over 140 years later in R v Westminster City Council ex parte Leicester Square Coventry Street Association in 1989 ((1989) 59 P&CR 51) where the same covenants were in issue.

A more recent example, and the subject of this article, is the litigation over a small, but valuable piece of land (the property) adjoining 89 Holland Park (No. 89), in west London, suitable for building a house. The property first came to fame among lawyers when a dispute over a covenant to build a wall between No. 89 and the property was heard by Oliver J in March 1977. His judgment in Radford v De Froberville [1977] 1 WLR 1262 remains the locus classicus on the measure of damages

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll