In the recent case of Hughes Family Property Co Ltd v Persons Unknown, the court highlights the importance of including potential defendants who may have an interest in the outcome of a part 8 claim.
Background
The claimants owned two parcels of the same land, which was subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting them from building on it. In order to overcome this obstacle, they intended to pursue a part 8 claim, without naming a defendant, for a declaration from the court that they were not bound by this covenant. The claimants first required permission from the court to issue this claim without naming a defendant. An application was made to this effect but in this case, retrospectively and after their part 8 claim was issued.
The claimants’ application for permission was made on the basis that the land which enjoyed the benefit of the restrictive covenant was owned by a company that had been dissolved, and another covenantee had sold their land and expressed no opposition to their claim. The claimants therefore argued that the absence of opposing parties negated the need for a named defendant and sought permission to proceed with their claim on this basis.
Held
The court dismissed the claimant’ application on the basis that the owners and occupiers of the neighbouring land would have an interest in enforcing this restrictive covenant if valid. Therefore, unless they provided their consent to the claimants’ claim, it would be entirel appropriate to include them as defendants in the part 8 claim.
Takeaways
- Identifying Potential Defendants: The court identified neighbouring property owners and occupiers as necessary defendants. These parties would have a vested interest in the enforcement of the covenant if it were valid. Their involvement is therefore crucial, as they could possess relevant documentation and information that could influence the claim.
- Claimants’ Assumptions: The lack of direct/ obvious defendant is not enough to allow for a valid claim to be pursued without first considering all other potential defendants who may have an interest in the outcome of a claim. While one covenantee had no objections to the claim, the court highlighted that it was improper for the claimants to assume that all neighbouring parties shared this viewpoint. Unless they had explicitly confirmed to the Claimants that they did not oppose the claim, it was necessary for them to be included to ensure fair and comprehensive adjudication.
A full note of the case can be found here: – https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/2288.html
This update is for general purpose and guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be taken before acting on any of the topics covered. No part of this update may be used, reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means without the prior permission of Brecher LLP.
