Tega Awinoron & Anor v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Tega Awinoron & Anor v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

The covenant is not obsolete as its secondary purpose—to protect the character and amenity of the objector's retained property—remains achievable and relevant. The covenant secures a practical benefit of advantage to the objector, and there is insufficient evidence that money would be adequate compensation for the disadvantage suffered by modification. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to modify the covenant under section 84(1)(a) or (aa).

Parties
Applicants: Tega Awinoron and Edward Edirin Otomiewo; Objector: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Final Determination
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Modification of Covenants, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925, Injunctions, Landlord and Tenant
Property Law Land Law Restrictive Covenants Modification of Covenants Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 Injunctions Landlord and Tenant

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tega Awinoron and Edward Edirin Otomiewo

Applicants

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant is obsolete under section 84(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the covenant impedes reasonable use and secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage under section 84(1)(aa)
  3. 3 Whether money would be adequate compensation for any loss or disadvantage from modification

Ratio Decidendi

The covenant is not obsolete as its secondary purpose—to protect the character and amenity of the objector's retained property—remains achievable and relevant. The covenant secures a practical benefit of advantage to the objector, and there is insufficient evidence that money would be adequate compensation for the disadvantage suffered by modification. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to modify the covenant under section 84(1)(a) or (aa).

Court Disposition

Application refused