0
Tom succeeded on an application under section 84(2) of LPA 1925 establishing that the erection of a new house at Sandbanks, Poole would not breach restrictive covenants.
The judgment of Joanna Smith J is of interest because it: (1) explains (for the first time) why a restrained approach to the interpretation of restrictive covenants is normally appropriate; (2) reminds us why the ambit of estoppel by contract/estoppel by deed is limited (an unexpressed assumption underlying contractual drafting being insufficient to create such estoppels); and (3) upheld a decision to award the Claimants their costs of the proceedings in a departure from the usual order of “no order as to costs” (being, perhaps, the first such order made post-CPR).
