Camstead Ltd, Re Law Of Property Act 1925 [2004] EWLands LP_26_2003 (18 October 2004)

Camstead Ltd, Re Law Of Property Act 1925 [2004] EWLands LP_26_2003 (18 October 2004)

The restrictive covenants are not obsolete as their object—to prevent development of rear gardens and preserve amenities—is still capable of fulfilment; modification would secure practical benefits of substantial value to objectors and would injure them; application fails under all grounds.

Citation
[2004] EWLands LP_26_2003
Parties
Applicant: Camstead Limited; Objector: Mr and Mrs T R Holt; Objector: Mr and Mrs S Eggo; Objector: Mr A F Bailey and Mrs R A Evans-Bailey; Objector: Mr P Learoyd; Objector: Mr and Mrs M Lown; Objector: Mr B Forsyth; Objector: Mr and Mrs D L Andrews; Objector: Mr and Mrs M E Lumsden; Objector: Mr and Mrs Childerley; Objector: Mr A G Metcalfe; Objector: Mrs K Arrandale; Objector: Ms R Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Modification of Covenants, Obsolescence of Restrictions, Practical Benefits, Injury to Beneficiaries, Planning Permission
Property Law Land Law Restrictive Covenants Modification of Covenants Obsolescence of Restrictions Practical Benefits Injury to Beneficiaries Planning Permission

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 3 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Camstead Limited

Applicant

Mr and Mrs T R Holt

Objector

Mr and Mrs S Eggo

Objector

Mr A F Bailey and Mrs R A Evans-Bailey

Objector

Mr P Learoyd

Objector

Mr and Mrs M Lown

Objector

Mr B Forsyth

Objector

Mr and Mrs D L Andrews

Objector

Mr and Mrs M E Lumsden

Objector

Mr and Mrs Childerley

Objector

Mr A G Metcalfe

Objector

Mrs K Arrandale

Objector

Ms R Jones

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants are obsolete under s84(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether modification would impede reasonable user and fail to secure practical benefits under s84(1)(aa)
  3. 3 Whether modification would injure persons entitled to benefit under s84(1)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants are not obsolete as their object—to prevent development of rear gardens and preserve amenities—is still capable of fulfilment; modification would secure practical benefits of substantial value to objectors and would injure them; application fails under all grounds.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed