The land-owners applied for a variation of a restrictive covenant to allow them to put a second house on their plot. They had bought out the right of the original builder, but a neighbour also had the benefit of the covenant. They now appealed the nil compensation awarded.
Held: ‘it is perhaps difficult, as a matter of logic, to see why impact on the amenity of one property can in any way be related to the enhanced profitability of another.’ The award stood.
Ward LJ, Rix LJ, Carnwath LJ
 EWCA Civ 1088
England and Wales
Cited – Fairclough Homes Ltd, Re LT 8-Jun-2004
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 . .
Cited – Shepherd v Turner CA 2006
Cited – Re Kershaw’s Application LT 1975
Two bungalows were to be built in the grounds of a house subject to a restrictive covenant. The tribunal considered the degree of disturbance which would be suffered by the objector neighbours.
Held: The neighbours would ‘suffer considerably . .
Cited – Skupinski, Re Law of Property Act 1925 LT 30-Nov-2004
A covenant prevented new building other than for a garage. The owner proposed a three-car garage extension, but with a play-room above, for the applicant’s own use. The relevant property of the objector was not her own house, but consisted of a . .
Cited – Jaggard v Sawyer and Another CA 18-Jul-1994
The plaintiff appealed against the award of damages instead of an injunction aftter the County court had found the defendant to have trespassed on his land by a new building making use of a private right of way.
Held: The appeal failed.
Cited – Re Fisher and Gimson (Builders) Ltd’s Application LT 1992
A new house was built in contravention of a covenant, which the builder thought to be unenforceable. A neighbour objected, and having been found to have the benefit of the covenant after other neighbours had settled, he claimed 100% of the . .
Cited – SJC Construction v Sutton London Borough Council CA 1976
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 . .
Cited – Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v Alwiyah Developments CA 1983
There was to be a development of six flats on land subject to a restrictive covenant. The developer began without a modification being sought. The benefit of the covenant was attached to adjoining land owned by the local authority, which they . .
Cited – Wrotham Park Estate Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd ChD 1974
55 houses had been built by the defendant, knowingly in breach of a restrictive covenant, imposed for the benefit of an estate, and in the face of objections by the claimant.
Held: The restrictive covenant not to develop other than in . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2021; Ref: scu.260276