Shaw, Re The Larches [2009] EWLands LP_71_2007 (19 January 2009)

Shaw, Re The Larches [2009] EWLands LP_71_2007 (19 January 2009)

The Tribunal held that the character of the neighbourhood had not changed sufficiently to render the restrictive covenants obsolete. The original purpose of the covenants—to protect the objectors' property from adverse development—could still be served. Sporadic infilling and development in the wider area had not altered the predominantly residential character or the protection afforded by the covenants. The application was therefore misconceived and bound to fail.

Citation
[2009] EWLands LP_71_2007
Parties
Applicant: Jack Irvine Davidson Shaw; Applicant: Doris Joan Shaw; Objector: Lillian May Heath; Objector: Andrew Heath
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Restrictive Covenants / Final Decision
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Discharge of Covenants, Obsoleteness of Covenants, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Discharge of Covenants Obsoleteness of Covenants Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jack Irvine Davidson Shaw

Applicant

Doris Joan Shaw

Applicant

Lillian May Heath

Objector

Andrew Heath

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Restrictive Covenants / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants on the applicants' land are obsolete by reason of changes in the character of the property or neighbourhood under section 84(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the character of the neighbourhood had not changed sufficiently to render the restrictive covenants obsolete. The original purpose of the covenants—to protect the objectors' property from adverse development—could still be served. Sporadic infilling and development in the wider area had not altered the predominantly residential character or the protection afforded by the covenants. The application was therefore misconceived and bound to fail.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application to discharge restrictive covenants is refused.