BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Peverel Freehold Ltd v Stonyfield Management Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1911 (08 November 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1911.html Cite as: [2012] EWCA Civ 1911 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE PURLE QC)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LLOYD
and
LADY JUSTICE RAFFERTY
____________________
PEVEREL FREEHOLD LIMITED |
Fourth Defendant/ Appellant |
|
- AND - |
||
STONYFIELD MANAGEMENT LTD |
Fifth Defendant Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms Saira Kabir Sheikh (instructed by Dutton Gregory) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Mr Conrad Rumney (instructed by Gateley LLP) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Lloyd:
"... against all actions claims demands and liabilities (including costs and expenses) arising directly or indirectly in respect of:-
...
4.4.2 Any outstanding planning conditions obligations building regulation matters, or any agreements made pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990."
This is the covenant sought to be relied on.
"The language used by the parties will often have more than one potential meaning. I would accept the submission made on behalf of the appellants that the exercise of construction is essentially one unitary exercise in which the court must consider the language used and ascertain what a reasonable person, that is a person who has all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract, would have understood the parties to have meant. In doing so, the court must have regard to all the relevant surrounding circumstances. If there are two possible constructions, the court is entitled to prefer the construction which is consistent with business common sense and to reject the other."
Lady Justice Rafferty:
Lord Justice Ward:
Order: Appeal dismissed.