Case, Re Land at Cae Hir [2008] EWLands LP_55_2006 (09 June 2008)

Case, Re Land at Cae Hir [2008] EWLands LP_55_2006 (09 June 2008)

The restriction secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors, particularly in terms of visual amenity, openness, and the semi-rural character of their properties. Any form of residential development would have a seriously detrimental effect on these benefits. The applicant failed to establish that the covenant should be discharged or modified under section 84(1)(aa).

Citation
[2008] EWLands LP_55_2006
Parties
Applicant: Jeremy David Michael Case; Objector: Timothy Reynolds; Objector: Annie Thomas; Objector: Mr & Mrs J Marjoram; Objector: Mr & Mrs P Jones; Objector: Mr & Mrs M Law; Objector: Mrs P Ballamy; Objector: Mr & Mrs W Shaw; Objector: Mr & Mrs C Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Discharge or Modification of Covenants, Residential Development, Visual Amenity, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Discharge or Modification of Covenants Residential Development Visual Amenity 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy David Michael Case

Applicant

Timothy Reynolds

Objector

Annie Thomas

Objector

Mr & Mrs J Marjoram

Objector

Mr & Mrs P Jones

Objector

Mr & Mrs M Law

Objector

Mrs P Ballamy

Objector

Mr & Mrs W Shaw

Objector

Mr & Mrs C Smith

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant should be discharged or modified to permit residential development under section 84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the restriction secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors, particularly in terms of visual amenity, openness, and the semi-rural character of their properties. Any form of residential development would have a seriously detrimental effect on these benefits. The applicant failed to establish that the covenant should be discharged or modified under section 84(1)(aa).

Court Disposition

Application refused