Harrold & Anor, Re Law Of Property Act 1925 [2003] EWLands LP_45_2002 (27 October 2003)

The covenant is not obsolete because it continues to provide real protection to the owner of 11A Hough Top, and the changes in the neighbourhood have not materially diminished the effectiveness of that protection.

Parties: Applicant: Geoffrey Charles Harrold; Applicant: Mary Catherine Harrold; Objector: Margaret Veitch
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 27 October 2003
Procedural Posture: Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Decision on Application for Discharge of Restrictive Covenant
Outcome: application dismissed
Legal Topics: Restrictive Covenants, Obsolescence of Covenants, Discharge of Covenants

Property Law Restrictive Covenants Obsolescence of Covenants Discharge of Covenants

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Geoffrey Charles Harrold

Applicant

Mary Catherine Harrold

Applicant

Margaret Veitch

Objector

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

1 Whether the restrictive covenant restricting use to a single dwellinghouse and prohibiting nuisance is obsolete under section 84(1)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

application dismissed