learned she had extended her own property.

The Court of Appeal ruled against Marilyn Ritchie's injunction against her neighbour Margaret Every who plans to extend her home.

Every and Ritchie are both long term leaseholders of property at Southdown Farm, in Southampton.

Landlords Gibbons and Outerbridge Limited laid down guidelines for any tenants that wished to make extensions. That included receiving written approval from immediate neighbours.

Appeal Court Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice da Costa spelled out the evidence. He said: "Mrs. Every proposed to build an extension at the rear of number 36.

She accordingly obtained the written approval from one of her immediate neighbours, the committee of management and the landlords.'' Every was also granted planning permission for the extension, but Ritchie then refused to give her written approval.

She was granted an injunction restraining Every from building the extension, but the injunction was discharged by Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward in August. Ritchie was appealing against Mr. Justice Ward's decision.

But Mr. Justice da Costa said: "It is quite clear that in obtaining the injunction Mrs. Ritchie had failed to make a full and frank disclosure of the material facts to the court.

"She had failed to state in her affidavit that in 1990 she herself built an extension on her own property and had enclosed part of the land at the rear of her house.

"She had also failed to state that of the 54 units at Southdown Park 20 have had additions made to them over the years.'' Lawyer for Ritchie, Mr. Kieron Unwin claimed Every was in breach of restrictive covenants contained in the lease.

But Mr. Justice da Costa said: "The question arises, was Mrs. Ritchie's conduct in this matter of such a character that it would be fair and equitable to grant the relief which she seeks.

"She had herself built onto her property a two storey addition which is substantially in the same form as the one which Mrs. Every proposes to build -- a fact which, as we have observed, she failed to disclose to the judge at first.

"She had also failed to disclose the practice which had developed among owners of the condominium to add extensions to their buildings.'' He also found it noteworthy that in a letter of October 31, 1989, to the condominium management, Mrs. Ritchie had written: "I have no objection whatsoever to an owner adding to or altering their property if it is done at the rear of the unit and does not intrude on the overall appearance of the development from the roads or other units.'' Mr. Justice da Costa said: "It is clear that the addition proposed by the respondent, Mrs. Every, is at the rear of her unit and there is no evidence whatsoever that the proposed construction would `intrude on the overall appearance of the development'.

"If Mrs. Ritchie had not, herself, built an extension, if she had not written the letter of October 31 and, most important of all, if she had made a full disclosure of these and other relevant matters to the court, she might have obtained an injunction.

"As it is however she failed to do so and cannot be granted the equitable remedy she now seeks.''