header-logo header-logo

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

Covenants: conduct, consent & costs

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll