Jasper Edward Peck Dickinson v William Gordon Adams & Anor
The restriction impedes a reasonable use of the property and does not secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors. The proposed modification will not injure the objectors. The applicant's undertakings further mitigate any concerns.
- Parties
- Applicant: Jasper Edward Peck Dickinson; Objector: William Gordon Adams; Objector: Rita Joy Adams
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 27 May 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Decision
- Outcome
- Application granted
- Legal Topics
- Restrictive Covenants, Modification of Covenants, Planning Permission, Conservation Areas
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jasper Edward Peck Dickinson
Applicant
William Gordon Adams
Objector
Rita Joy Adams
Objector
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the restrictive covenant should be modified to permit the development of two dwellings in breach of a single dwellinghouse covenant
- 2 Whether the covenant secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors
- 3 Whether modification will injure the objectors
Ratio Decidendi
The restriction impedes a reasonable use of the property and does not secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors. The proposed modification will not injure the objectors. The applicant's undertakings further mitigate any concerns.
Court Disposition
Application granted
Orders
- The restriction in the Charges Register for The Walk, Lower Road, Ufford, Woodbridge IP13 6DL is modified under section 84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925 to permit the development as per planning permission granted on 14 July 2020 (DC/20/1768/FUL), subject to conditions.
- Modification is conditional on the applicant accepting the modification, providing an undertaking to implement the method statement, and providing an undertaking (including a £5,000 deposit) to repair any damage to the access area.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment