header-logo header-logo

Restrictive covenants: modifying the benefit

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll