Kevin James Harrison-Ellis & Anor v Stuart Gerald Hunt & Anor

Kevin James Harrison-Ellis & Anor v Stuart Gerald Hunt & Anor

The Tribunal found that the practical benefits secured by the restrictions were not of substantial value or advantage and could be adequately compensated by a payment of £25,000. The applicants' conduct was not cynical, and the objectors' delayed and exaggerated reaction undermined their claim. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to modify the restrictions to permit the extension at Hillside as it stands.

Parties
Applicant: Kevin James Harrison-Ellis; Applicant: Kelly Elizabeth Harrison-Ellis; Objector: Stuart Gerald Hunt; Objector: Anita Hunt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Judgment
Outcome
application granted
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Modification of Covenants, Loss of Privacy, Loss of View, Compensation, Discretion of Tribunal
Property Law Land Law Restrictive Covenants Modification of Covenants Loss of Privacy Loss of View Compensation Discretion of Tribunal

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

Parties

Kevin James Harrison-Ellis

Applicant

Kelly Elizabeth Harrison-Ellis

Applicant

Stuart Gerald Hunt

Objector

Anita Hunt

Objector

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants are obsolete
  2. 2 Whether modification will injure beneficiaries
  3. 3 Whether practical benefits of substantial value or advantage are secured

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the practical benefits secured by the restrictions were not of substantial value or advantage and could be adequately compensated by a payment of £25,000. The applicants' conduct was not cynical, and the objectors' delayed and exaggerated reaction undermined their claim. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to modify the restrictions to permit the extension at Hillside as it stands.

Court Disposition

application granted

Orders

  • Restrictions modified to permit the development at Hillside as it stands
  • Applicants to pay £25,000 compensation to the objectors