Jocelyn May Sutton v Steven Baines & Anor

Jocelyn May Sutton v Steven Baines & Anor

The applicant failed to prove that the restriction secures no practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors, particularly given the lack of specific planning permission and the blanket nature of the discharge sought. Therefore, the application for discharge is refused.

Parties
Applicant: Jocelyn May Sutton; Objector: Steven Baines; Objector: Helen Baines
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Discharge of Covenants, Planning Permission
Property Law Land Law Restrictive Covenants Discharge of Covenants Planning Permission

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

Parties

Jocelyn May Sutton

Applicant

Steven Baines

Objector

Helen Baines

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'one house' restrictive covenant should be discharged under section 84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the restriction secures no practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors, particularly given the lack of specific planning permission and the blanket nature of the discharge sought. Therefore, the application for discharge is refused.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • application refused
  • costs to be determined; objectors will normally be awarded their costs unless they acted unreasonably