Hae Developments Limited v The Croft Ealing & Anor

Hae Developments Limited v The Croft Ealing & Anor

The covenants are obsolete due to significant changes in the character of The Croft and the neighbourhood, including the construction of flats and maisonettes. The covenants no longer secure practical benefits to the objectors, and their retention does not prevent the alleged disadvantages. The proposed development is reasonable, and there is no injury to the objectors protected by the covenants. Discharge is appropriate under s.84(1)(a) and (c).

Parties
Applicant: HAE Developments Limited; Objector: The Croft Ealing Ltd; Objectors: Leaseholders at The Croft (see Schedule)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Restrictive Covenant Discharge/modification Application / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Application allowed; restrictive covenants discharged as obsolete and not securing practical benefit.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Discharge or Modification of Covenants, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925, Planning Permission, Neighbourhood Amenity
Land Law Property Law Restrictive Covenants Discharge or Modification of Covenants Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 Planning Permission Neighbourhood Amenity

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HAE Developments Limited

Applicant

The Croft Ealing Ltd

Objector

Leaseholders at The Croft (see Schedule)

Objectors

Procedural Posture

Restrictive Covenant Discharge/modification Application / Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants preventing more than one dwellinghouse are obsolete under s.84(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether discharge or modification of the covenants would injure persons entitled to their benefit (s.84(1)(c))
  3. 3 Whether the covenants secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage (s.84(1)(aa))

Ratio Decidendi

The covenants are obsolete due to significant changes in the character of The Croft and the neighbourhood, including the construction of flats and maisonettes. The covenants no longer secure practical benefits to the objectors, and their retention does not prevent the alleged disadvantages. The proposed development is reasonable, and there is no injury to the objectors protected by the covenants. Discharge is appropriate under s.84(1)(a) and (c).

Court Disposition

Application allowed; restrictive covenants discharged as obsolete and not securing practical benefit.

Orders

  • Covenant restricting to one dwellinghouse discharged entirely.
  • Covenant requiring approval of building discharged.