A formal lease will often contain covenants imposing restrictions on the user of the demised premises. These may be positively phrased — for example, to use the demised premises as a private dwellinghouse only — or negatively phrased — such as not to use the demised premises for certain trades. Covenants as to user are liberally interpreted, so that only a slight deviation from a covenant which is largely observed will not amount to a breach.1 In St. Marylebone Property Co. Ltd. v. Tesco Stores Ltd. (1988), Hoffman J. said that in order to constitute a breach of covenant, the sale of prohibited items would have to constitute a distinct trade, but need not be the dominant trade. This was adopted and approved as the test for breach of a user covenant by the Court of Appeal in Williams v. Kiley (2003) discussed more fully in 10.3 below.
Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
Please log in to get access to this content
- Covenants restrictive of the user of the premises and covenants against alterations
- Macmillan Education UK
- Sequence number
- Chapter number
- Chapter 10