Jaggard v Sawyer [1995]: Key Takeaways for Property Law

Jaggard v Sawyer [1995] 1 WLR 269 is a leading English case on remedies for breach of restrictive covenants. Here’s a summary of the case.

Case Name: Jaggard v Sawyer and Another

Citations: [1995] 2 All ER 189; [1995] 1 WLR 269; [1995] 1 EGLR 146; [1995] 13 EG 132; [1994] EGCS 139; [1994] EWCA Civ 1

Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales

Judges: Sir Thomas Bingham MR (Master of the Rolls), Kennedy LJ, Millett LJ

Date: 18 July 1994

Areas of Law: Property Law, Restrictive Covenants, Trespass, Injunctions vs. Damages

Facts of the Case: Jaggard v Sawyer

Ashleigh Avenue in Dorset was a private cul-de-sac developed with 10 houses, subject to restrictive covenants binding all owners.

Mr. and Mrs. Sawyer (defendants) owned No. 5 and wanted a larger home. They bought land behind their property (from 13 Bull Lane) to build a new house (No. 5A). They created a driveway through their existing garden to give No. 5A access to Ashleigh Avenue.

Mrs. Jaggard (plaintiff), owner of No. 1, objected, arguing that the driveway breached covenants. The use of Ashleigh Avenue by No. 5A was trespass (since the road was private).

Despite objections, the Sawyers built No. 5A. By the time proceedings were brought, the house was nearly complete.

County Court Decision

The trial judge held Ashleigh Avenue was indeed private. The Sawyers’ use of it was trespass and breach of covenant. But instead of granting an injunction (which would effectively make No. 5A landlocked), the judge awarded damages in lieu under s.50 Supreme Court Act 1981.

Damages were assessed at what a reasonable sum would have been for release of the right of way: £6,250 (split among residents).

Mrs. Jaggard appealed, insisting an injunction should have been granted.

Court of Appeal Decision (Jaggard v Sawyer)

The appeal was dismissed.

Normally, a person whose property rights are infringed is entitled to an injunction.

However, following Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895], damages may be substituted if the injury is small, measurable in money, can be adequately compensated by money, and an injunction would be oppressive to the defendant.

The Court of Appeal held all four conditions were satisfied here. Extra traffic from one additional house was minimal. Mrs. Jaggard’s concerns could be addressed with money. An injunction would have been oppressive, since it would render No. 5A useless and destroy the Sawyers’ home.

Outcome:

Mrs. Jaggard’s appeal was dismissed. The Sawyers kept access to No. 5A via Ashleigh Avenue, but had to pay damages.

Key Principles Applied in this Case

Courts have discretion (under Lord Cairns’ Act and s.50 Supreme Court Act 1981) to award damages instead of injunctions, especially where an injunction would be disproportionate.

Shelfer test provides a framework for when damages should replace injunctions.

Courts will consider the reality at the time of trial—if a building is already complete, courts are reluctant to order remedies that destroy it.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1994/1.html

---

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

MORE FROM PROPERTY LAW:

• Whittlesea City Council v Abbatangelo [2009]: Adverse Possession
• Rodrigues v Ufton (1894): Trespass, Possession & Landlord Rights
• Alexander Gregg v Tasmanian Trustees Ltd [1997]: Mortgage Law