header-logo header-logo

17 January 2019 / Andrew Bruce
Issue: 7824 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Restrictive covenants: modifying the benefit

How far across an objector’s lands does a benefit extend? Andrew Bruce examines two recent cases

  • Two recent decisions of the Upper Tribunal have considered the question of the extent to which the land benefited by a relevant covenant is required to be the same as the land owned by the person entitled to the benefit of such a covenant.

Restrictive covenants which affect freehold land can often hamper the development of that land. This effect is ameliorated by the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to modify or discharge such covenants. In particular, s 84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925 gives the tribunal power to modify covenants where their continued existence would impede some reasonable user of the land and where impeding that user does not secure to persons entitled any practical benefits of substantial value or advantage. Further, s 84(1)(c) authorises modification where such will not injure the persons entitled to the benefit of the restriction. The policy behind s 84(1)(aa) has been said to be ‘to facilitate the

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