Rutland Lodge (Petersham) Management Company Limited vs Oliver Julian Benjamin and Tamara Benjamin

This case concerned a dispute over a freehold covenant and property alterations at Rutland Lodge in Richmond, Surrey.

TLDR:

• Rutland Lodge Management Company claimed the defendants breached a covenant by making unauthorized alterations.
• The defendants argued the claimant unreasonably withheld consent for further works.
• The court examined the terms of a Tomlin Order and the obligations of both parties.
• The court ruled on the interpretation of the agreement and the implementation of specific measures to resolve the dispute.

The claimant, Rutland Lodge (Petersham) Management Company Limited, managed an estate comprising Rutland Lodge and four other dwellings. The defendants, Oliver Julian Benjamin and Tamara Benjamin, owned one of these dwellings at 2 Rutland Drive. The dispute arose when the defendants made alterations to their property, including the addition of a sunroom, without seeking the claimant's permission as required by a freehold covenant.

The claimant argued that the alterations breached the covenant, either due to a misrepresentation or unilateral mistake in a license granted in May 2016, or because the works exceeded the license's terms. The defendants counterclaimed that the claimant unreasonably refused consent for further planned works.

Following mediation, the parties reached a compromise, formalized in a Tomlin Order on 1 February 2023. The order required the defendants to undertake specific actions, including installing a hedge and louvers, and restricting the use of certain areas of their property. The defendants later sought court orders to clarify and enforce the terms of the Tomlin Order.

The court examined the agreement and the background to the dispute. It was found that the defendants had to install louvers across the entirety of the upper northern window of the sunroom, subject to compliance with planning and building regulations. The court also ruled that the planters marking the boundary lines had to form a continuous barrier, and the retention of plants in a prohibited area was not allowed.

In its judgment, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the agreement and the necessity of compliance with legal requirements. The court provided detailed guidance on the interpretation of the agreement and the obligations of both parties.

Legal representatives: Dr. Ashley Bowes (instructed by Dixon Ward Solicitors) for the claimant. The defendants appeared in person.

Judicial Panel: Master Brightwell

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1429 (Ch)