header-logo header-logo

Covenants: conduct, consent & costs

27 October 2017 / Andrew Bruce
Issue: 7767 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Andrew Bruce provides a timely update

  • Unattractive conduct does not deny relief under s 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
  • Compensation of £21,000 does not justify a costs award.

In October 2011, Mrs Pauline Hennessey’s home in Great Maplestead was gutted by fire. Rather than re-build a facsimile of the house, Mrs Hennessey decided to construct a larger, somewhat grander property that she would call ‘High View’ on the same location as her previous home. In order to finance this construction, Mrs Hennessey wanted to build two further detached houses in the garden of her property. Having finally obtained planning permission for her construction works in December 2015, Mrs Hennessey then had to deal with the restrictive covenant that burdened her land.

The covenant, which had been imposed in 1971 on Mrs Hennessey’s predecessor-in-title, prohibited the erection of more than a single dwellinghouse on Mrs Hennessey’s land (‘the density restriction’) and required that Mrs Hennessey obtain prior approval of her plans from the beneficiaries of the covenant (‘the consent restriction’).

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
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll