fbpx

What is an 'Annoyance'? High Court Defines the Correct Legal Test

16th June 2022 By

Restrictive covenants that forbid property owners from causing annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to their neighbours commonly appear in title deeds – but how are they to be interpreted? In the context of a dispute between residents of a housing estate, the High Court gave authoritative guidance on that issue.

Properties on the estate were subject to a covenant prohibiting their owners from doing anything that would or might be, or grow to be, an annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to other residents. Despite opposition from their neighbours, a couple who lived on the estate obtained planning permission to build an extension.

The neighbours argued that the extension should nevertheless be prohibited in that it would breach the covenant. After a hearing, however, a judge found that there would be no such breach. In doing so, he asked himself whether a hypothetical reasonable person would be annoyed or otherwise aggrieved by the extension. He cited the example of an ordinary, sensible English inhabitant of the estate.

In challenging that outcome, the neighbours argued that the judge applied the wrong legal test and set the bar of reasonableness too high. They contended that, even if it could be said that the proverbial reasonable person would not be annoyed by the extension, the project should still be prohibited in that they would in fact be annoyed by it and their views could not be described as unreasonable.

Upholding the judge’s ruling, however, the Court found that his interpretation of the covenant, which was of a very common type, was entirely logical and sensible. In asking whether an ordinary, reasonable person, having regard to the ordinary use of the relevant properties, would be annoyed by the extension, he deployed a commonplace test that the courts are well equipped to apply.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Inheritance – Daughter's Lies Trigger Rare Finding of Fraudulent Calumny

22nd June, 2022 By

Sick and vulnerable people can be prone to the malign, even fraudulent, influence of relatives or others who are intent on maximising their inheritance. However, as a High Court case showed, such conduct is unlikely to go undetected. The case concerned a man who was suffering from leukaemia when he died at the age of 92. Less than a month before he passed away, he made a will by which he bequeathed almost the whole of his estate to his daughter and her partner. He left only his cars and...

What is an 'Annoyance'? High Court Defines the Correct Legal Test

16th June, 2022 By

Restrictive covenants that forbid property owners from causing annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to their neighbours commonly appear in title deeds – but how are they to be interpreted? In the context of a dispute between residents of a housing estate, the High Court gave authoritative guidance on that issue. Properties on the estate were subject to a covenant prohibiting their owners from doing anything that would or might be, or grow to be, an annoyance, nuisance or disturbance to other residents. Despite opposition from their neighbours, a couple who lived...

Double Taxation Treaties – Wealthy South African Relieved of £10 Million Bill

13th June, 2022 By

Rich individuals often have their feet firmly planted in more than one country and that can give rise to disputes as to where they should be taxed. In a guideline case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) considered the position of an extremely wealthy man with extensive ties to both the UK and the Republic of South Africa. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) argued that the man was liable for Income Tax in respect of more than £20 million that he received from a family trust during five tax years. He asserted...

Family Judge Labours to Achieve Fairness Between Debt-Laden Divorcees

10th June, 2022 By

So-called 'big money' divorces may grab the headlines, but lower-value disputes can often be the hardest to resolve. In a case on point, a family judge laboured to meet the reasonable needs of a divorcing couple whose debts far exceeded their modest savings. The couple's marriage lasted almost 30 years, yielding three children who had grown to adulthood. Whilst the wife worked full time, the father's primary role was that of a stay-at-home parent, looking after the home and children. They lived in a housing association property and, although they...