Gafford v Graham (1998) 77 P & C.R. 73
Property law – Restrictive covenants – Damages
Facts
D began the construction of an indoor riding school as part of a business that was run on the premises. The plaintiff complained about this and the works that were being carried out to convert a barn and a bungalow on the basis that the defendant had not gained permission to build on the land and that he was using the land for something other than a livery yard which was in breach of the restrictive covenants attached to the land. The plaintiff issued a writ for the payment of damages and an injunction to prevent the land from being used as a riding school. The county court awarded the plaintiff damages to the value of £36,750 for the breach of the covenant and the defendant appealed the decision. The plaintiff cross-appealed for the demolition of the riding school.
Issues
The court was required to establish whether the plaintiff still had the power to enforce the rights owed to him in the circumstances, despite not raising a complaint until a late point in proceedings.
Decision/Outcome
The court allowed the appeal of the defendant and dismissed the cross appeal of the plaintiff. With regards to the building work, the plaintiff clearly understood his rights but did not enforce them until a later stage and this delay prevented all subsequent action. The court recognised that the defendant had acted with a blatant disregard for the plaintiff’s rights but felt that the damages awarded satisfied this. The amount of damages that was awarded to the plaintiff was slightly reduced for the effect that the delay in bringing the matter to trial caused for the cost of the interest on the payment.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Gafford v Graham (1998) 77 P & CR 73, a Court of Appeal judgment concerning the enforcement of restrictive covenants and the equitable principles governing delay (acquiescence/laches) in seeking injunctive relief and damages. The underlying legal principles — that delay or acquiescence can bar equitable remedies such as injunctions in restrictive covenant disputes, and that damages under Lord Cairns’ Act (now the Senior Courts Act 1981, s.50) may remain available even where an injunction is refused — remain good law. The case continues to be cited in property law for these propositions and has not been overruled or materially distinguished in any subsequent leading authority. There have been no statutory changes since 1998 that would alter the outcome or principles described. The summary is therefore still broadly accurate for students studying restrictive covenants and remedies in land law.
