The case involved a house on a small estate next to the river Thames, where planning permission had been obtained to build a three-storey side extension. Five neighbours objected because it would partially obscure their river views. They relied on a restrictive covenant not to cause ‘nuisance or annoyance’. The High Court held that whilst the obstruction of the view would not be a legal nuisance, it could amount to an ‘annoyance’, with the test for annoyance being whether ‘reasonable people, having regard to the ordinary use of a house for pleasurable enjoyment, would be annoyed or aggrieved’, with that being judged by ‘robust and common sense standards’. On that basis, the obstruction of the view did amount to an ‘annoyance’ and thus the covenant prevailed. 



As a note in the SJ points out, this case is a useful reminder that developers need to be aware of ‘nuisance or annoyance’ covenants, which can prevent building works (even when there is no covenant against building). The other lesson, of course, is that when drafting a restrictive covenant be aware of the benefit of including the wider word ‘annoyance’, rather than merely relying on a prohibition against a ‘nuisance’.