The plaintiff sought to enforce a restrictive covenant against using a property ‘otherwise than as a private dwelling-house’. 30 years later the Defendant purchased the property and immediately started taking paying guests. The defendant had suggested that the covenants may be modified by the Lands Tribunal, but he made no application. Held: The area was … Continue reading Chatsworth Estates Company v Fewell: 1931

A covenant required the purchasers to erect and maintain a chain link fence. Held: The covenant was a positive personal covenant between the original vendor and the original purchaser and was not a restrictive covenant. The Lands Tribunal declined jurisdiction to vary it under the section. Citations: (1962) 14 PLCR 56 Statutes: Law of Property … Continue reading Blythe Corporation’s Application: 1962

Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal offence under section 193 of the Law of Property Act … Continue reading Bakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others: HL 1 Apr 2004

A land transfer had contained a clause requiring a restrictive covenant agreeing not to erect any building without the approval by the neighbours of plans. Held: The term ‘transferors’ was to be read to include the transferors’ successors in title. There was to be implied into the covenant a condition that approval was not to … Continue reading Mahon and Another v Sims: QBD 8 Jun 2005

Appeal from grant of permission for modification of restrictive covenants on land. Judges: Underhill, Sales, Moylan LJJ Citations: [2018] EWCA Civ 2679, [2019] JPL 471, [2019] 2 P and CR 2, [2019] 1 WLR 2729, [2018] WLR(D) 733 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 84 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Appeal … Continue reading The Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Millgate Developments Ltd and Others: CA 28 Nov 2018

The claimants asserted that they had the benefit of restrictive covenants under a building scheme to prevent the defendants erecting more houses in their neighbouring garden. The defendants pointed to alleged breaches of the same scheme by the claimants. Held: There was not only an intention to create a building scheme but also a clearly … Continue reading Turner and Another v Pryce and others: ChD 9 Jan 2008

The claimant sought a declaration that restrictive covenants imposed in 1896 affecting its land were no longer effective. Held: The declaration was granted. Under the 1881 Act (as opposed to the 1925 Act) covenants were not automatically attached to the land. Here there was no implied or explicit annexation of the covenants. The covenants were … Continue reading Seymour Road (Southampton) Ltd v Williams and Others: ChD 29 Jan 2010

A greenhouse was not an ‘erection’ within section 62(1). Megaw LJ noted that it was customary to move the greenhouse every few years, Megaw LJ [1969] CLY 3040 Law of Property Act 1925 62(1) England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Elitestone Ltd v Morris and Another HL 1-May-1997 The plaintiff acquired land on which … Continue reading H E Dibble v Moore: CA 1969

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – 1864 and 1881 restrictive covenants – use as private dwellinghouse only and imposition of building lines – uncontested breach as a doctor’s surgery – no breach of building lines – application to discharge 1864 covenant under ground (a) allowed in part – application to discharge remainder of 1864 covenant under ground … Continue reading Morningside (Leicester) Ltd Re 169 Narborough Road: UTLC 17 Feb 2014

The court considered the creation by section 62 of the 1925 Act automatically of easements when land was divided. The claimants owned land bounded on either side by properties beloinging to the respondents. The properties had once been in common ownership. They asserted the existence of a bridleway easement along a track to the public … Continue reading Campbell and Another v Banks and Others: CA 1 Feb 2011

The defendant blocked the line of a sewer. The claimant alleged that it had an easement and sought the cost of building the alternative pipe. The question to be answered was ‘Where an easement is granted by implication on the sale of a property, . .

A property was held in the joint names of a former husband and wife. To obtain a loan for the husband, a legal charge over the property was executed by the husband, but he had another woman execute for the wife, pretending to be her. The chargee . .

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – DISCHARGE – three houses built on part of golf course – 30- year covenants restricting residential development without consent – objector having no retained land – price for consent not a practical benefit – no loss or . .