Duncan Grossart v Vikki Ames

The restriction is obsolete as its original purpose has been fulfilled and the character of the neighbourhood has fundamentally changed due to substantial residential development. The restriction impedes reasonable use of the land, does not secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objector, and its discharge will cause no injury. The application is allowed and the restriction is discharged without compensation.

Parties: Applicant: Duncan Grossart; Objector: Vikki Ames
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 21 April 2026
Procedural Posture: Application Under Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Judgment
Outcome: Application allowed; restriction discharged without compensation.
Legal Topics: Restrictive Covenants, Discharge or Modification of Covenants, Planning Permission, Obsolescence of Restriction

Land Law Property Law Restrictive Covenants Discharge or Modification of Covenants Planning Permission Obsolescence of Restriction

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Duncan Grossart

Applicant

Vikki Ames

Objector

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

1 Whether the restrictive covenant is obsolete under section 84(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925
2 Whether the restriction impedes reasonable use and secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage under section 84(1)(aa)
3 Whether discharge or modification will injure the objector under section 84(1)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application allowed; restriction discharged without compensation.

Orders

The restrictive covenant is discharged under section 84(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925 without compensation.