Dobbin v Redpath & Anor

Dobbin v Redpath & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because the Lands Tribunal correctly treated the existence of a building scheme as a material factor, giving weight to the practical benefits of maintaining low density and character in the area. The tribunal did not err in applying an increased presumption or in refusing to modify the covenant, as the original purpose of the scheme was still being fulfilled and the development plan did not outweigh the benefits of the restriction.

Parties
Appellant: Dobbin; Respondent: Redpath & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Lands Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Building Schemes, Modification of Covenants, Section 84 Law of Property Act
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Building Schemes Modification of Covenants Section 84 Law of Property Act

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dobbin

Appellant

Redpath & Anr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Lands Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lands Tribunal erred in refusing to modify a restrictive covenant under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 due to the existence of a building scheme.
  2. 2 Whether an 'increased presumption' applies against modification of covenants within a building scheme.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Lands Tribunal correctly treated the existence of a building scheme as a material factor, giving weight to the practical benefits of maintaining low density and character in the area. The tribunal did not err in applying an increased presumption or in refusing to modify the covenant, as the original purpose of the scheme was still being fulfilled and the development plan did not outweigh the benefits of the restriction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.