Colleagues,

I agree with Andrew that, on my first quick read of the majority judgment, the Morris-Garner decision makes sense. 

If what is being compensated in Wrotham Park type cases is the loss of an asset then it is in substance no different to recovering the value of a chattel or other traditional form of property that is destroyed as the result of a breach of contract, although it will generally be more difficult to assess quantum in such as case as compared to a chattel.

It also seems to me that Wrotham Park facts would now be a case that has nothing to do with Lord Cairns Act and would be simply a case where the claim for a mandatory injunction would be knocked back because damages for breach of contract would be an adequate remedy - successors in title to the restrictive covenant would be enforcing the contract creating to on the privity of estate 'exception' to the privity doctrine. 

Thus, it seems to me that labelling the damages that are available here as 'negotiation damages' is a unnecessary and is a misnomer because such a label suggests that these damages are in some way different to the existing bases for the recovery of damages for breach of contract.

Peter