Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974]
Share
Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798 holds significant importance in the English land law and contract law. It revolves around the measure and availability of damages for breaching a negative covenant when a court deems the covenant legally enforceable but refrains from issuing an order for specific performance or an injunction. The resulting remedy, coined as Wrotham Park damages, is awarded under the jurisdiction established by the Chancery Amendment Act 1858, also known as Lord Cairns' Act.
Wrotham Park Estate, an estate with historical ties to the gentry and nobility, had portions sold off for development, subject to layout restrictions. Potters Bar Urban District Council auctioned a piece of land for 14 houses, purchased by Parkside despite warnings of violating layout restrictions. Subsequently, the owners of Wrotham Park Estate brought a claim against Parkside for breaching the restrictive covenant.
The judgment, delivered by Brightman J, awarded damages of £2,500 as a substitute for an injunction. This amount was determined as 5% of the developer's anticipated profit. Brightman J rejected the argument that damages should be nil since the value of Wrotham Park Estate was not diminished. He emphasised the importance of compensating the plaintiffs if an injunction was not granted, questioning the fairness of allowing the wrongdoer to retain the benefits of their actions.
The impact of the case is profound, establishing the concept of Wrotham Park damages and the compensation principle. These damages are intended to compensate the claimant for the court's decision not to grant specific performance or an injunction. The judgment introduced the idea of a hypothetical negotiation, wherein damages are determined by assuming reasonable behaviour from both parties at the date of the breach.
Moreover, the case's influence extends beyond land law. Wrotham Park damages have been found applicable in other contexts, such as employment law concerning restrictive covenants. However, limitations exist, notably the exclusion of damages when a plaintiff initially seeks damages for consequential economic damage, as commonly seen in the law of nuisance.
In essence, this case has left a lasting impact on the principles governing damages in cases of breach of negative covenants, providing a nuanced and fair approach to compensation in lieu of specific performance or injunctions.
Wrotham Park Estate, an estate with historical ties to the gentry and nobility, had portions sold off for development, subject to layout restrictions. Potters Bar Urban District Council auctioned a piece of land for 14 houses, purchased by Parkside despite warnings of violating layout restrictions. Subsequently, the owners of Wrotham Park Estate brought a claim against Parkside for breaching the restrictive covenant.
The judgment, delivered by Brightman J, awarded damages of £2,500 as a substitute for an injunction. This amount was determined as 5% of the developer's anticipated profit. Brightman J rejected the argument that damages should be nil since the value of Wrotham Park Estate was not diminished. He emphasised the importance of compensating the plaintiffs if an injunction was not granted, questioning the fairness of allowing the wrongdoer to retain the benefits of their actions.
The impact of the case is profound, establishing the concept of Wrotham Park damages and the compensation principle. These damages are intended to compensate the claimant for the court's decision not to grant specific performance or an injunction. The judgment introduced the idea of a hypothetical negotiation, wherein damages are determined by assuming reasonable behaviour from both parties at the date of the breach.
Moreover, the case's influence extends beyond land law. Wrotham Park damages have been found applicable in other contexts, such as employment law concerning restrictive covenants. However, limitations exist, notably the exclusion of damages when a plaintiff initially seeks damages for consequential economic damage, as commonly seen in the law of nuisance.
In essence, this case has left a lasting impact on the principles governing damages in cases of breach of negative covenants, providing a nuanced and fair approach to compensation in lieu of specific performance or injunctions.
