header-logo header-logo

Compare & contrast: three lessons from the courts on covenants

18 June 2020 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7891 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail
22939
Why is the ability of a tenant to modify certain restrictive covenants in leases under s 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 not better known, asks Andrew Francis
  • The decision in Edgware Road.
  • Comparisons withShaviram and Berkeley Square.
  • Practical suggestions.

At first sight there is not much in common between a vacant 1980s office building near Basingstoke Railway Station, a mid-eighteenth century Grade I townhouse and a Grade II mews house of the same period, on the west side of Berkeley Square in Mayfair and finally, part of a 1960s development (formerly used as offices) on the west side of the Edgware Road, less than half a mile north of Marble Arch. The tenant of each property wanted to modify the user covenant in its lease. While the locations and properties were different, the commercial and economic interests of the applicant tenants were aligned, as were the interests of the respondent landlords. In each application

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll