Parkinson, Re [2005] EWLands LP_62_2004 (16 December 2005)

Parkinson, Re [2005] EWLands LP_62_2004 (16 December 2005)

The Tribunal held that there had been no material change in the character of the property or neighbourhood to render the covenants obsolete; that not all beneficiaries had agreed to the discharge; and that the proposed development would cause some injury to the objectors and weaken the scheme of mutually enforceable covenants. None of the statutory grounds for discharge were satisfied.

Citation
[2005] EWLands LP_62_2004
Parties
Applicant: David Parkinson; Applicant: Janet Parkinson; Applicant: Christine Quiggin; Objector: Anthony Burns; Objector: Margaret Burns
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Discharge of Restrictive Covenant / Final Decision
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Discharge of Covenants, Law of Property Act 1925 S.84
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Discharge of Covenants Law of Property Act 1925 S.84

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Parkinson

Applicant

Janet Parkinson

Applicant

Christine Quiggin

Applicant

Anthony Burns

Objector

Margaret Burns

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application for Discharge of Restrictive Covenant / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenants are obsolete under s.84(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether all beneficiaries have agreed to discharge under s.84(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether discharge would injure those entitled to benefit under s.84(1)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that there had been no material change in the character of the property or neighbourhood to render the covenants obsolete; that not all beneficiaries had agreed to the discharge; and that the proposed development would cause some injury to the objectors and weaken the scheme of mutually enforceable covenants. None of the statutory grounds for discharge were satisfied.

Court Disposition

application dismissed