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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll