Dahi Hassan & Anor v Nicholas Peter Heath

Dahi Hassan & Anor v Nicholas Peter Heath

The Tribunal held that the restrictive covenant secured a practical benefit of substantial advantage to the objector in relation to the roof works, justifying refusal to modify the covenant for those works. However, the ground floor works, including minor deviations from planning consent, did not confer a substantial advantage and their retention would not diminish the value or enjoyment of the objector's property. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to modify the covenant to permit the ground floor works but not the roof works.

Parties
Applicant: Mr Dahi Hassan; Applicant: Dr Mariam Osman; Objector: Mr Nicholas Peter Heath
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Judgment on Application for Modification of Restrictive Covenant
Outcome
Application allowed in part; modification of restrictive covenant granted for ground floor works only, refused for roof works.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Modification of Covenants, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925, Planning Permission, Discretionary Relief
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Modification of Covenants Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 Planning Permission Discretionary Relief

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Dahi Hassan

Applicant

Dr Mariam Osman

Applicant

Mr Nicholas Peter Heath

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Judgment on Application for Modification of Restrictive Covenant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant should be modified to permit alterations to the applicants' property, including ground floor and roof works, in light of planning permission and objections by the neighbouring owner.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the restrictive covenant secured a practical benefit of substantial advantage to the objector in relation to the roof works, justifying refusal to modify the covenant for those works. However, the ground floor works, including minor deviations from planning consent, did not confer a substantial advantage and their retention would not diminish the value or enjoyment of the objector's property. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to modify the covenant to permit the ground floor works but not the roof works.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; modification of restrictive covenant granted for ground floor works only, refused for roof works.

Orders

  • The restrictive covenant is modified to permit the ground floor works, including the current height of the ground floor extension, the current rear window at ground floor level in the rear elevation, the second proposed rear window to align with the extant one, and the front canopy, as per planning consent...
  • No modification is granted for the roof works.