Jaggard v Sawyer
The court may award damages instead of an injunction for breach of a restrictive covenant, measured by the price that might reasonably have been agreed for release of the covenant.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Sawyer built a house in the garden of their property, on a private road on a residential estate. The only access to the new house was over the private road, and its use for that purpose was a breach of a restrictive covenant and a trespass. Mrs Jaggard, another resident, objected but did not seek an interim injunction before the house was built. She then sought an injunction to prevent the use of the road to reach the new house.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's decision to refuse an injunction and award damages instead. Sir Thomas Bingham MR said that damages under Lord Cairns' Act may be awarded in place of an injunction where the injury to the claimant is small, capable of being estimated in money, and adequately compensated by a small money payment, and where an injunction would be oppressive. The damages were assessed on the basis of what the residents might reasonably have demanded for releasing the covenant, following Wrotham Park Estate v Parkside Homes.
Related cases on freehold covenants
- Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45, [2020] 1 WLR 4783
- Austerberry v Oldham Corporation (1885) 29 Ch D 750
- Re Ballard's Conveyance [1937] Ch 473
- Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood [2021] EWCA Civ 1927
- Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Ltd v McAllister [2004] EWCA Civ 410, [2004] 1 WLR 2409
- Elliston v Reacher [1908] 2 Ch 374
- Federated Homes Ltd v Mill Lodge Properties Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 594
- Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
