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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

NEWS
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
The long-running Mazur saga edged towards its finale as the Court of Appeal heard arguments on whether non-solicitors can ‘conduct litigation’. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School reports from a packed courtroom where 16 wigs watched Nick Bacon KC argue that Mr Justice Sheldon had failed to distinguish between ‘tasks and responsibilities’

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
back-to-top-scroll