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

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