Graham v Easington District Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1503 (02 December 2008)

Graham v Easington District Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1503 (02 December 2008)

The Lands Tribunal was entitled to find, as a matter of fact, that the practical benefits secured by the restrictive covenant were not of substantial advantage to the council, particularly in light of the council's own grant of planning permission for residential development. The alleged changes in circumstances...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 1503
Parties
Appellant: Graham; Respondent: Easington District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Lands Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Discharge of Covenants, Planning Permission, Land Use, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Planning Law Restrictive Covenants Discharge of Covenants Planning Permission Land Use 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham

Appellant

Easington District Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Lands Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lands Tribunal erred in law in discharging a restrictive covenant under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the grant of planning permission by the same authority is determinative of the discharge of the covenant
  3. 3 Whether there was a substantial change of circumstances since the grant of planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

The Lands Tribunal was entitled to find, as a matter of fact, that the practical benefits secured by the restrictive covenant were not of substantial advantage to the council, particularly in light of the council's own grant of planning permission for residential development. The alleged changes in circumstances were not sufficiently substantial to alter this conclusion, and no error of law or perversity was shown in the Tribunal's reasoning.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed