Dog evicted; accountant bashing; employment compensation up.
VICTORY OVER VINNIE
It wasn’t an absolute prohibition against keeping pets that did it. It wasn’t a qualified prohibition against keeping pets without consent not to be unreasonably withheld that did it. No, what did it for young Yorkshire/Maltese terrier Vinnie was the covenant not to keep any ‘dog bird cat or other animal’ without consent. The lessor of one of 146 flats and maisonettes in London’s Victory Place development at Limehouse consented but not the management company. And that takes us to Victory Place Management Co Ltd v Kuehn v Kuehn [2018] EWHC 132 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 147 (Jan) where Vinnie’s owners were appealing against a county court injunction to remove their pet.
The route to a successful challenge which can be engaged with a covenant of this nature was to show that the management company was not going to tolerate a pet over its dead body or, to put it in the more refined speak of my learned friend, it had pursued an illegitimate predetermination to reach a particular decision.
