- Annexation of the benefit of restrictive covenants—the case of the proposed rugby stadium development and the enforceability of a 1922 covenant (Bath Rugby v Greenwood)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Property analysis: In a case of interest to property litigators, the High Court has found that a restrictive covenant created on 6 April 1922 concerning land in the centre of Bath (part of which is the home of Bath Rugby club) remained enforceable by a group of local residents. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered the law relating to the requirements for the annexation of the benefit of restrictive covenants such as may render them enforceable between successors in title to the original parties to the covenant. In a separate judgment on costs the court interpreted and applied the rule of practice which afforded favourable treatment to defendants to such claims; in this case awarding the defendants who had opposed the claim their costs on the indemnity basis throughout. Written by William Moffett, barrister at Radcliffe Chambers and counsel to the seventh and eighth defendants in this case. He also represented the third, fourth, seventh and eighth defendants on the question of costs.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial