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

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll