Morgan v No Respondent [2006] EWLands LP_79_2004 (18 July 2006)

Morgan v No Respondent [2006] EWLands LP_79_2004 (18 July 2006)

The restriction is not obsolete as the original purpose of protecting residential amenity remains capable of fulfilment. The restriction secures practical benefits of substantial value to the council, including discouraging anti-social behaviour and supporting community welfare. These benefits are not compensatable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWLands LP_79_2004
Parties
Applicant: Derrick Morgan; Objector: Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Decision on Application for Discharge or Modification of Restrictive Covenant
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Modification or Discharge of Covenants, Residential Amenity, Sale of Alcohol, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Land Law Restrictive Covenants Modification or Discharge of Covenants Residential Amenity Sale of Alcohol Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derrick Morgan

Applicant

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Decision on Application for Discharge or Modification of Restrictive Covenant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant prohibiting the sale of alcohol is obsolete under section 84(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the restriction impedes reasonable user of the land and secures practical benefits of substantial value under section 84(1)(aa)
  3. 3 Whether the proposed modification would injure the objector under section 84(1)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction is not obsolete as the original purpose of protecting residential amenity remains capable of fulfilment. The restriction secures practical benefits of substantial value to the council, including discouraging anti-social behaviour and supporting community welfare. These benefits are not compensatable by money. The application fails under all grounds (a), (aa), and (c).

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for discharge or modification of restrictive covenant is refused.