James Anthony Farrell v Hugh Garforth-Bles & Anor

James Anthony Farrell v Hugh Garforth-Bles & Anor

The covenants continue to secure practical benefits of substantial value to the residents of Bishop’s Mansions by inhibiting noise, fumes, loss of privacy, and security risks. The character of the property and neighbourhood has not materially changed since the covenants were imposed. The proposed modification would undermine these benefits, and neither ground (a), (aa), nor (c) under section 84 is made out. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to grant the application.

Parties
Applicant: James Anthony Farrell; Objector: Hugh Garforth-Bles; Objector: Bishop’s Mansions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Determination
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Modification of Restrictive Covenants, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925, Practical Benefits, Obsolescence, Planning Use Classes
Property Law Land Use Restrictive Covenants Modification of Restrictive Covenants Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 Practical Benefits Obsolescence Planning Use Classes

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

Parties

James Anthony Farrell

Applicant

Hugh Garforth-Bles

Objector

Bishop’s Mansions Limited

Objector

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants should be modified to permit wider commercial use under Class E
  2. 2 Whether the covenants are obsolete
  3. 3 Whether the covenants secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to neighbouring owners

Ratio Decidendi

The covenants continue to secure practical benefits of substantial value to the residents of Bishop’s Mansions by inhibiting noise, fumes, loss of privacy, and security risks. The character of the property and neighbourhood has not materially changed since the covenants were imposed. The proposed modification would undermine these benefits, and neither ground (a), (aa), nor (c) under section 84 is made out. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to grant the application.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for modification of restrictive covenants is refused
  • Right of appeal to the Court of Appeal on any point of law with permission