Vendor and purchaser summons under section 49 of the Law of Property Act 1925 . .
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – modification – covenants restricting development, use and density to three detached private dwellings – modification sought to permit 83-bed care home – application dismissed – grounds (aa) and (c), s.84(1), Law of Property . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The defendants had charged a property to the claimant bank to secure a guarantee of borrowings. The signatures were not witnessed as required under section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, and there were other misdescriptions. The bank sought a declaration as to the validity of the charge, and now applied for summary judgment. Held: Applying … Continue reading Bank of Scotland Plc v Waugh and Others: ChD 21 Jul 2014
The testator occupied farmland and buildings. He was helped in maintaining the farm by his son, but gave the land to his grandchildren by his will. The son claimed to have been granted an informal written agricultural tenancy by his father before . .
The defendant and his wife separated when she left the flat they shared. She accepted a new tenancy of other premises. The landlord claimed possession of the flat, saying that the tenancy had ended.
Held: There was no express surrender within . .
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – dwellinghouse – proposal to extend well in front of building line – application refused – Law of Property Act 1925 s84(1)(a), (aa), (b) and c) Citations:  UKUT 6 (LC) Links: Bailii Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 8491)(a) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Land Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: … Continue reading Coldman, Re 133 Richmond Road: UTLC 20 Feb 2012
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – discharge – modification – proposed development of 10 flats to replace single house – whether covenants obsolete – changes to the character of the neighbourhood – whether similar covenants elsewhere on estate no longer enforceable – thin end of the wedge argument – reasonable user – whether public interest in the development … Continue reading King, Re 64 Buxton Road: UTLC 6 Feb 2012
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – no objections – restriction prohibiting alterations etc without vendor’s approval of plans – whether obsolete – modification sought prohibiting alterations etc not in keeping with neighbourhood – held inappropriate to impose restriction that would present problems with implementation – application refused – Law of Property Act 1925 s 84(1) … Continue reading Flowers, Re 30 Burges Road: UTLC 2 Feb 2010
The claimant had an equitable charge over the property, and sought a possession order after failures to keep up repayments. The order was sought under the Act, and the claimants asserted that the conditions for the grant of possession were unchanged. Held: Parliament had clearly intended a change. The interests of a chargee ranked alongside … Continue reading Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Shaire and Another: ChD 25 Feb 2000
Land was sold. The parties disputed whether a greenhouse was included. Held: It was a large greenhouse consisting of a sectional frame bolted to a large concrete base. ‘Building’ was to be given the meaning ascribed by s62 of the 1925 Act. The greenhouse was not sufficiently affixed but rested by its own weight on … Continue reading Deen v Andrews: 1986
The Divisional Court in Bankruptcy applied the rule that a judicial act takes effect at the very start of the day on which it occurs to give deemed precedence to a receiving order, a judicial act, over a payment made earlier in the day. The overreaching statutory trusts for sale imposed by the Law of … Continue reading Re Warren: ChD 1932
‘This appeal concerns the Scots law of gratuitous alienations on insolvency. It raises three principal questions. First, there is a question as to the interpretation of the term ‘adequate consideration’ in section 242(4)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986. Secondly, there is the question whether the Inner House was entitled to interfere with the Lord Ordinary’s … Continue reading MacDonald and Another v Carnbroe Estates Ltd: SC 4 Dec 2019
The owner had agreed to sell a long lease of an apartment to the defendant. Part of the price was to be by way of set off of an existing debt, but ths was not set out in the contract. The claimant bought the land and the benfit of the contract from the original developer, … Continue reading Dolphin Quays Developments Ltd v Mills and others: CA 17 May 2007
Ex turpi causa explained The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for what it said would have been an infringing trade, and pleaded ex … Continue reading Les Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others: SC 29 Oct 2014
On an application to vary a restrictive covenant preventing further building, construction disturbance was treated as one of number of factors justifying refusal to modify. Judges: Mr Clarke Citations:  70 P and CR 569 Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 84 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Applied – Re Tarhale Limited LT 1990 Two … Continue reading Re Bromor Properties Limited: LT 1995
Two five bedroom houses were proposed on the garden of a plot for which only one plot was permitted by the restrictive covenant. There was a specific covenant relating to the use of the approach drive and preventing its use by lorries or heavy vehicles, apart from those required for a particular development. The objectors … Continue reading Re Tarhale Limited: LT 1990
The applicants sought modification of a covenant, to enable them to build a second house on a single plot within a building scheme. Held: ‘The position of the Tribunal is clear. Any application under section 84(1) must be determined upon the facts and merits of the particular case, and the Tribunal is unable to bind … Continue reading Re Snaith and Dolding’s Application: LT 1995
In the case of an application to remove or vary covenants for a property within a building scheme, there is ‘a greater onus of proof upon any applicants for the modification of covenants to show that the requirements of section 84 of the Act are satisfied.’ The court rejected a suggestion that ‘practical benefits’ were … Continue reading Gilbert v Spoor: CA 1983
The court considered the interpretation of clauses allowing a notice to complete a contract for the sale of land. Godfrey QC said: ‘In my judgment this notice, served as it was under cover of the letter of November 10, 1981, referring to the National Conditions of Sale, and referring as it did to the contract … Continue reading Dimsdale Developments (South East) Ltd v De Haan: 1983
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
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its property rights. It was also argued that it was not possible to make a declaration … Continue reading Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2): HL 10 Jul 2003
The landlord’s agents wrote to the proposed tenant offering a quarterly tenancy of the premises. The tenancy was to commence at a future date. The defendant endorsed the letter and returned it to say he would abide by the terms, and he was allowed into possession. He ceased to pay rent, and eventually came to … Continue reading Long v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: ChD 29 Mar 1996
The husband had forged his wife’s signature on the loan application and on the charge of the house held by himself and his wife as joint tenants. He had left the country, and the plaintiff sought to enforce the charge, and ex parte obtained an order nisi charging the husband’s interest in the house. The … Continue reading First National Securities v Hegerty: CA 1984
The claimant, a charity assisting immigrants and asylum seekers, challenged a policy document regulating the access to the court of failed applicants facing removal. They said that the new policy, reducing the opportunity to appeal to 72 hours or less, made ineffective any right for judicial review. Held: The request was granted, and the 2010 … Continue reading Medical Justice, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 26 Jul 2010
UTLC Prohibition of more than one house on plot – planning permission for second house – whether covenant obsolete – held that it was not – application under grounds (a) and (c) refused – whether covenant secured practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – held that it did not – application under ground (aa) … Continue reading Rae, Re 12 Park View (Restrictive Covenants : Modification): UTLC 13 Dec 2016
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – building scheme – land originally designated a close to which all residents would have access – prohibition on building and uses other than garden or recreation ground for residents – land sold in 1952 and since used as private garden with no access for residents – history of objections … Continue reading Surana, Re Land Adjoining 21 Icklingham Road: UTLC 30 Aug 2016
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – discharge or modification – dwellinghouse – restrictions preventing erection of building and any additions, alterations, fences and outbuildings without Vendor’s consent – application to discharge or modify restrictions to permit implementation of planning permission to demolish existing two storey dwelling and replace with larger house – whether requirement for consent extended … Continue reading Cook and Another Re: 21 Shawfield Park: UTLC 19 Dec 2014
This appeal concerns the question whether an area of land in Bath known as the Recreation Ground, commonly called ‘the Rec’, is still subject to a restrictive covenant imposed in a conveyance of the Rec dated 6 April 1922 (‘the 1922 conveyance’). That turns on the question whether there is anyone who can now claim … Continue reading Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood and Others: CA 21 Dec 2021
Minor Irregularity in Break Notice Not Fatal Leases contained clauses allowing the tenant to break the lease by serving not less than six months notice to expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date of the term of the lease. The tenant gave notice to determine the leases on 12th January 1995, although the … Continue reading Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance: HL 21 May 1997
Application was made to vary a restrictive covenant: ‘ . . how the character of the area and the amenities would be affected by the modification of the restriction is not in my view to be judged by envisaging the worst that could be done without breaching the restriction and comparing it with what the … Continue reading Fairclough Homes Ltd, Re: LT 8 Jun 2004
The claimant sought rectification of the land register. In a development deal, an option agreement had not been registered, and the land sold on. The land was required to allow the building of a roundabout necessary for the intended store. An application had been made for registration of the option, but requisitions had not been … Continue reading Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Olympia Homes Limited, Hughes etc: ChD 17 Jun 2005
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – proposed erection of detached house in place of former lodge – whether practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – application granted on ground (aa) – compensation awarded of andpound;75,000 – Law of Property Act 1925 s84(1)(aa) and (c)  UKUT 153 (LC) Bailii England and Wales Land Updated: … Continue reading 3 Aylmer Drive, Re: UTLC 29 Apr 2014
Briggs LJ  EWCA Civ 183,  PNLR 420 Bailii Trustee Act 1925 61 England and Wales Citing: Appeal from – Santander UK Plc v RA Legal Solicitors (A Firm) QBD 23-May-2013 The claimant bank said that it had been the subject of a mortgage fraud, and that the defendant solicitors had acted for the … Continue reading Santander UK Plc v RA Legal Solicitors: CA 24 Feb 2014
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 defendants had published remarks on its website about the reliability of the claimant. When sued in defamation, they pleaded fair comment, but that was rejected by the Court of Appeal. Held: The defendants’ appeal succeeded, and the fair comment defence was re-instated. The phrase ‘honest comment’ should now be used to reflect the nature … Continue reading Spiller and Another v Joseph and Others: SC 1 Dec 2010
The court considered the defence of illegal user to a claim to have established an easement by prescription: ‘These authorities seem to me to establish that when applying the ‘ex turpi causa’ maxim in a case in which a defence of illegality has been raised, the court should keep in mind that the underlying principle … Continue reading Tinsley v Milligan: CA 1992
No damages for Psychiatric Harm Alone The House considered claims by police officers who had suffered psychiatric injury after tending the victims of the Hillsborough tragedy. Held: The general rules restricting the recovery of damages for pure psychiatric harm applied to the plaintiffs’ claims as employees. An employer has a duty to protect his employees … Continue reading White, Frost and others v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and others: HL 3 Dec 1998
The defendants sought to set aside orders allowing the claimants to serve proceedings alleging repudiation of a charterparty in turn allowing a claim against the defendants under a guarantee. The defendant said the guarantee was unenforceable under the 1677 Act not being in writing and signed. Held: There was no limit to the number of … Continue reading Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another: ComC 21 Jan 2011
The land owners sought relief from possession orders made under mortgages given in equity release schemes: ‘If the purchaser raises all or part of the purchase price on mortgage, and then defaults, the issue arises whether the mortgagee’s right to possession has priority over, or is subject to, any entitlement of the vendor to continue … Continue reading Cook v The Mortgage Business Plc: CA 24 Jan 2012
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations contained the entire regime. Held: Criminal conduct at common law or by statute can constitute unlawful means … Continue reading Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs: HL 12 Mar 2008
(High Court of Australia) Cases of mutual wills are only one example of a wider category of cases, for example secret trusts, in which a court of equity will intervene to impose a constructive trust. Latham CJ described a mutual will arrangement as ‘a trust which is declared by the law to affect the conscience … Continue reading Birmingham v Renfrew: 11 Jun 1937
The appellant challenged a sale and rent back transaction. He said that the proposed purchaser had misrepresented the transaction to them. The Court was asked s whether the home owners had interests whose priority was protected by virtue of section 29(2)(a)(ii) of, and Schedule 3, paragraph 2, to the Land Registration Act 2002. Held: The … Continue reading Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd and Others: SC 22 Oct 2014
The claimant, in a representative action complained that the works involved in the erection of the Canary Wharf tower constituted a nuisance in that the works created substantial clouds of dust and the building blocked her TV signals, so as to limit her enjoyment of her land. Held: The interference with TV reception by an … Continue reading Hunter and Others v Canary Wharf Ltd: HL 25 Apr 1997
The taxpayer made a gift of shares to a trust set up to fund a medical professorship. The shares were in a private company, and an option was given for their repurchase once a certain level of dividends had been attributed to them. He was assessed to substantial surcharges on them on the basis that … Continue reading Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners: HL 24 Nov 1966
An appeal was mounted against the decision of the Lands Tribunal to allow the variation of a restrictive covenant under 84(1A)(b) only and not under 84(1A)(a). The tribunal had said that the word ‘substantial’ required applicants to show: ‘that the . .
The claimant had bought land from the council. The only means of access was over land retained by the council but there was no grant of a right of way. The claimant now appealed refusal of a right of way by necessity.
Held: At the time of the . .
Properties, when leasehold, had acquired rights of way by prescription over neighbouring land. The freehold interests were acquired, and the claimant now appealed a decision that the right of way acquired under his lease had disappeared.
Held: . .
The claimant sought a declaration that certain easements had been included by implication in a conveyance of part of land to him.
Held: Since the easements were capable of subsisting at law, and existed as quasi-easements at the time, and did . .
A right of way, originally granted in connection with a five year tenancy of a part of a house, was converted by section 62 into a permanent right of way on the conveyance of the freehold.
Lord Justice Purchas disagreed with the judge who had . .
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, . .
The court considered the effect of section 62 of the 1925 Act.
Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘The main intention of Section 62 was to provide a form of statutory shorthand rendering it unnecessary to include such words expressly in . .
Restrictive Covenants – Modification – redevelopment of the site of a former dwellinghouse destroyed by fire – multiple redevelopment proposals for one or two houses – whether a reasonable user – whether restriction secures practical benefits of . .
The purchaser had failed to complete, notwithstanding the service of a notice to complete. The purchaser a Nigerian company suffered a delay in obtaining funds due to a change in the exchange control regulations. There was no attempt to exclude . .
Three Leases of the Peter Jones site to T’s predecessor in 1934 contained covenants by T to redevelop the site in two phases, the second of which related to the MackMurdo and Simon’s Street buildings and was to be completed by December 25 1987. In . .
The defendant tenant appealed from refusal of relief from forfeiture. At the trial it was conceded that there had been breaches of covenant by the defendant company consisting of the failure to reconstruct the premises by a stated date, and to give . .
The claimants had been the registered proprietors of land, they lost it through the adverse possession of former tenants holding over. They claimed that the law had dispossessed them of their lawful rights.
Held: The cumulative effect of the . .
John Chadwick QC said of a clause restricting a contract variation not in writing: ‘One can see why such a provision is included in a contract for the sale and purchase of land. All material terms of a contract for the sale of land must be evidenced . .
Covenant preventing more than one house per plot – no injury to sole objector – lack of planning permission – the Tribunal’s discretion to modify – application to discharge refused – application to modify granted conditionally – Law of Property Act . .
Land had been purchased under compulsory purchase powers. It had been subject to restrictive covenants in favour of neighbouring land which would have prevented the development now implemented. The question was how the compensation should be . .
The plaintiffs had paid deposits for apartments which were to be built. After the developer became insolvent the plaintiffs sought recovery of the deposits, saying they had a lien which preceded the claims of chargees.
Held: The one appeal . .
The court considered the significance of a reservation that a letter was sent ‘subject to licence’. After considering case law: ‘All three go to show that there is a distinction recognised by the law between the relationships, such as those between . .
A common right of grazing which was quantified but not related to the ability of the land to sustain it was capable of existing in gross, and was therefore severable entirely from the land to which it related. The severance was no necessary . .
The plaintiffs granted a business lease to the defendants for three years. The tenant covenanted not to assign the lease without the written consent of the landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld in the case of a respectable tenant. . .
The trust was created in 1948, and provided gifts over, which had now failed. The court considered the construction of the term ‘stautory next of kin’. The possible beneficiaries claimed through being adopted, arguing that at the date of the last . .
A claim for an easement based upon section 62 of the 1925 Act failed. There had not been regular use of the path in question with the putative dominant tenement to gain access to it. Roch LJ said: ‘Section 62 of the 1925 Act cannot create new rights . .
Leeds County Court – Claim that a proposed bulding of additional premises within a property boundary would amount to an infringement of a restrictive covenant against causing a nuisance or annoyance to a neighbour.
Held: The building would be . .
The landlord granted the tenant a licence to make alterations to the property, but imposed conditions on the use to be made of the resulting premises. The tenant objected.
Held: The landlord was entitled when granting consent to take into . .
The tenant appealed against an order granting possession. The tenancy, being held of a mutual housing co-operative did not have security but was in a form restricting the landlord’s right to recover possession, and the tenant resisted saying that it . .
The University wanted to sell land for development free of restrictive covenants. It had previously been in the ownership of both the servient and dominant land in respect of a restrictive covenant. The Borough contended that the restrictive . .
The parties, on divorcing had a greed, under court order that W should obtain the release of H from his covenants under the mortgage of the family home. She had been unable to do so, and sought that order to be varied to allow postponement of her . .
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – discharge or modification – restriction preventing redecoration or alteration of building exterior – requirement to replace patio doors/windows – whether covenant obsolete – whether . .
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – obsoleteness – practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – implicit agreement – injury – application to permit erection of property in accordance with . .
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – addition of first floor above garage in Hampstead Garden Suburb – effect on character of area – policy guidance – precedent – weight to be given to local planning . .
UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – modification – proposed development of a detached house adjoining boundary of objector’s property – whether practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – application granted . .
The parties had agreed in a contract for the sale and purchase of land to exclude the application of section 49(2). The buyer had failed to comply with a notice to complete.
Held: The parties cannot contract out of section 49(2). The . .
The parties had agreed for a lease, and the tenant entered possession, but no formal lease was executed. The tenant stopped paying rent in 1977 or 1984. He now claimed rectification of the registers to show him as proprietor. The landlord argued . .
LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – proposal to modify occupancy restriction imposed by an agreement under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 – practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – . .
The appellant, Mr Lewis had been granted a tenancy by the appellant on its standard terms. Notice was given to terminate the tenancy. The tenant appealed against a ruling that he had not acquired a tenaancy for 90 years under the 1925 Act.
The appellants challenged the removal of a restrictive covenant on a neighbour’s house restricting further building on the land to allow further house in the garden. It was in a small close of houses all erected, and the covenant imposed, in 1952. . .
LT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – restriction to single storey dwelling – application to remove this limitation – proposed house – applicant the original covenantor – effect of possible refusal of planning permission for . .
The court upheld a declaration by the trial judge that the claimant was an equitable chargee under an equitable charge of the defendant’s property, notwithstanding that the claimant relied on an oral agreement by the defendant for the grant to the . .
The claimant challenged the forfeiture of its lease by a freeholder which had acquired the registered freehold title but had not yet registered its ownership. The second defendant had forfeited the lease by peacable re-entry for arrears of rent, and . .
The defendant entered into an agreement for lease, incurring substantial obligations. When it could not meet them it sought assistance from the claimant, who now claimed to have an interest in a joint venture. The draft documentation originally . .
The court handed down a New Practice Direction 52 for grounds of appeal, decisions in permissions to appeal, notices to respondents of appeals, appeal bundles etc. . .
References: (1937) 57 CLR 666,  HCA 52 Links: Austlii Coram: Dixon J, Latham CJ Ratio: (High Court of Australia) Cases of mutual wills are only one example of a wider category of cases, for example secret trusts, in which a court of equity will intervene to impose a constructive trust. Latham CJ described a … Continue reading Birmingham v Renfrew; 11 Jun 1937