Brown & Anor v No Respondent [2006] EWLands LP_34_2004 (19 May 2006)

Brown & Anor v No Respondent [2006] EWLands LP_34_2004 (19 May 2006)

The restriction is not obsolete as the neighbourhood's character and the purpose of the covenant remain unchanged; the restriction continues to provide substantial practical benefits to objectors; there is no express or implied agreement by beneficiaries to discharge; discharge would cause injury to objectors.

Citation
[2006] EWLands LP_34_2004
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Paul Brown; Applicant: Vicki May Brown; Objector: P A Love; Objector: W A Love; Objector: A A Wall; Objector: E H A Wall; Objector: G T C Rowberry; Objector: H J Rowberry; Objector: R C Welford; Objector: P A Welford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Discharge of Covenants, Residential Property, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Discharge of Covenants Residential Property Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Paul Brown

Applicant

Vicki May Brown

Applicant

P A Love

Objector

W A Love

Objector

A A Wall

Objector

E H A Wall

Objector

G T C Rowberry

Objector

H J Rowberry

Objector

R C Welford

Objector

P A Welford

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant prohibiting parking of boats, caravans, houses on wheels or commercial vehicles should be discharged under section 84(1)(a), (aa), (b) or (c) of the Law of Property Act 1925

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction is not obsolete as the neighbourhood's character and the purpose of the covenant remain unchanged; the restriction continues to provide substantial practical benefits to objectors; there is no express or implied agreement by beneficiaries to discharge; discharge would cause injury to objectors.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for discharge of restrictive covenant is refused
  • Parties invited to make representations as to costs