United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Earl of Halsbury — The question in this case is certainly reduced to a very simple one, and that is whether your Lordships are able to give a definite legal meaning to the restrictive words of this covenant. I confess I have been looking in vain for some definite guide as to what is suggested to be the real meaning. Both the learned counsel who have addressed your Lordships have, I think, failed to give any definite meaning to the words. What may reasonably be “seemly” appears to be a question rather of the personal conduct of the individuals engaged than any characteristic of the building which is supposed to be itself an infraction of the covenant that has been entered into.

I really do not feel it necessary to say any more about the matter except that I concur with the judgment of the Court of Session, and I think the appeal should be dismissed. I am wholly unable to follow the reasoning which alters the applicability of such words as are used here into some definite meaning which a Court can enforce. I am not aware of anything which will give in the ordinary use of language such an effect to these words as to render that meaning capable of being enforced.

For these reasons I move your Lordships that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

Lord James of Hereford—I concur.

Lord Robertson—I think this is a very clear case, but the law on this subject of servitudes affecting real property is one which requires delicacy of statement, and I shall most usefully express my opinion by saying that I entirely concur in the whole of the judgment of Lord Kinnear.

Lord Atkinson—I concur. I think the judgment of the Court of Session was right.