header-logo header-logo

26 November 2020 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7912 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Avoiding the stigma of cynical breach

32874
What can we learn from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd, asks Andrew Francis
  • The Supreme Court has just emphasised the importance of the applicant’s conduct in applications to discharge, or modify restrictive covenants under s 84(1) Law of Property Act 1925. What can we learn from the judgment of that Court?

On 6 November 2020, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45, [2020] All ER (D) 37 (Nov).

This article suggests that some lessons can be learnt from that judgment. It concentrates on those lessons and does not set out the facts in any detail. For those, reference can be made to the judgment itself, as well as to the other commentaries on the decision.

In this case the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal in November 2018 which had allowed the Trust’s appeal against the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll