Dobbin v No Respondent [2006] EWLands LP_59_2004 (30 August 2006)

Dobbin v No Respondent [2006] EWLands LP_59_2004 (30 August 2006)

The restriction secures practical benefits of substantial advantage to the objectors, specifically the maintenance of low density and the peaceful character of the building scheme. The proposed development would adversely affect these benefits by increasing density and giving the land a cramped appearance. The applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of section 84(1)(aa) and (c), and the application was refused.

Citation
[2006] EWLands LP_59_2004
Parties
Applicant: John Dobbin; Objectors: John Morse and Lilian Redpath (Trustees of the Conniscliffe Road Settlement); Objector: Lilian Redpath
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Decision
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Modification of Covenants, Building Schemes, Reasonable User, Public Interest
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Modification of Covenants Building Schemes Reasonable User Public Interest

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Dobbin

Applicant

John Morse and Lilian Redpath (Trustees of the Conniscliffe Road Settlement)

Objectors

Lilian Redpath

Objector

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant should be modified to permit development of a bungalow and garage on the application land under section 84(1)(aa), (b), and (c) of the Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the restriction secures practical benefits of substantial advantage to the objectors
  3. 3 Whether the proposed development constitutes reasonable user and is in the public interest

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction secures practical benefits of substantial advantage to the objectors, specifically the maintenance of low density and the peaceful character of the building scheme. The proposed development would adversely affect these benefits by increasing density and giving the land a cramped appearance. The applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of section 84(1)(aa) and (c), and the application was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for modification of restrictive covenant is refused.