Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 April 1992 |
| Date | 07 April 1992 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Balcombe and Sir Michael Kerr
Statutory construction - local Act - homes for working class - no continuing obligation
The terms of a 999-year lease of five acres of land by the Duke of Westminster to Westminster City Council, made pursuant to heads of agreement and to the Westminster City (Millbank) Improvement Act 1929, did not impose a continuing statutory obligation on the council to use the houses constructed on the land as dwellings for the "working classes" and for no other purpose. Further, the council was not precluded from requiring payments of premiums by tenants of any of those dwellings.
The Court of Appeal so held in allowing an appeal, following a compromise agreed between the parties, by Westminster City Council from parts of the judgment of Mr Justice Harman ([1991] 4 All ER 136) that had granted declarations sought by the trustees of the will of the second Duke of Westminster.
Mr Kim Lewison, QC and Mr Paul Morgan for the council; Mr Gavin Lightman, QC and Mr Frank Hinks for the trustees.
LORD JUSTICE NOURSE said the dispute concerned the city council's Grosvenor Housing Scheme: a development to provide some 600 dwellings to rehouse the occupants of worn out nineteenth century houses, flooded in 1928 by the Thames.
Pursuant to heads of agreement between the parties and the 1929 private Act, the Duke of Westminster in 1937 leased the land that was to be used for the development to the city council for 999 years.
Two issues arose for consideration. First, did the heads of agreement and the 1929 Act impose on the city council a continuing statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dano Ltd v Earl Cadogan and Others
...of the qualification for getting a house of that type. I do not see that I can infer poverty from the words used." 90 In Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster [1991] 4 All ER 136 (Harman J) and [1992] 24 HLR 572 (CA) the Court was concerned with a covenant restricting the use of co......
-
Johns and Johns v Wu and Cheng
...establishment had existed at the time, it would have been considered as falling within the definition. Mr Round refers to Westminster City Council v Duke of Westminster. 11 The parties to a lease chose to enter a covenant requiring that the premises be used to provide “dwellings for the wor......
-
The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v The Most Noble Gerald Cavendish Sixth Duke of Westminster and Others
...Tribunal did or did not have jurisdiction to modify or discharge certain obligations arising thereunder. His decision is reported at [1991] 4 All E.R. 136. The Council appealed against parts of the judge's order and the trustees cross-appealed. Now the dispute has largely been settled by a......
- Forbes Engineering (Asia) Pte Ltd v Forbes (No 4)