Andrew Butler QC succeeds in Court of Appeal

10th August 2018

Andrew Butler QC has successfully resisted an appeal against a judgment given in his clients’ favour in the Chancery Division in 2017 (Jones & anor v Oven & anor [2017] EWHC 1647 (Ch)).

The dispute concerned a complex series of property transactions as a result of which Mr and Mrs Jones (J) had sold part of their land to a developer (C), and C had sold on to Mr and Mrs Oven (O). On selling to C, J had given certain restrictive covenants (for the benefit of C and their successors in title) regarding their use of the retained land. However, the terms on which C acquired the land required them, in certain events, to reconvey a plot (which became known as “the Strip”) to J, and when selling to O, C passed this obligation on to them. The events which triggered the obligation to reconvey the Strip came to fruition. In light of earlier difficulties with J, O sought J’s assurance that they would use the Strip in accordance with the restrictive covenants which governed the rest of their land. J refused to give that assurance, so O refused to reconvey the Strip.

The issue was therefore whether the covenants given by J to C and its successors would also apply to the Strip once it was reconveyed, or whether J was entitled to take free of them.

At first instance, HHJ Paul Matthews sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division held that the covenants did (or, once it was reconveyed, would) apply to the Strip, either as a matter of construction of the express terms of the conveyance, or by a process of implication. He also dismissed a claim for damages brought by J for breach of the obligation to reconvey the Strip.

On appeal, J (now represented by Timothy Morshead QC) argued that the Judge had adopted the wrong approach, focussing as he had on the terms of the sale by J to C, rather (as he should have done) on the terms of the sale from C to O. The Court of Appeal rejected this contention, agreeing with Andrew’s submission that this approach involved denying that O had the benefit of the covenants given by J to C – a point which had been conceded prior to trial and had accordingly not been the subject of argument.

The Court of Appeal decision, which is reported as Jones and another v Oven and another [2018] EWCA Civ 1895 and can be found here, represents the end of a long-running, acrimonious and (for Andrew’s clients) deeply stressful dispute in which Andrew has achieved success at every stage, recovering his clients’ trial costs on the indemnity basis in the process.



Sign up to our newsletter mailing list for the latest news.