header-logo header-logo

27 September 2018 / Edward Peters KC , Philip Sissons
Issue: 7810 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Property law update

Edward Peters & Philip Sissons round up a selection of recent property cases

  • Modification of restrictive covenants.
  • Costs guidance in the First-tier Tribunal.
  • Residential property dispute deployment pilot.
  • Horizontal and vertical boundaries.

The Upper Tribunal has a discretionary jurisdiction to modify or discharge restrictive covenants under s 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925). The question of whether the tribunal can and will exercise that jurisdiction in a variety of different factual circumstances is often of substantial financial and personal importance, and continues to produce a steady flow of decisions.

In the recent case of Re Geall [2018] UKUT 154 (LC), the Upper Tribunal decided to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to s 84 to modify a restrictive covenant to permit the conversion of a barn into a new dwelling house.

The applicant was the owner of property comprising a bungalow and a barn which was used for agricultural storage. The land was subject to restrictive covenants which restricted use of the land to a single private dwelling house. The applicant

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