Nigel Briant v Hugo Baldacchino

Nigel Briant v Hugo Baldacchino

The restriction secures practical benefits of substantial advantage to the objector by impeding the proposed developments, both singly and in combination, due to cumulative effects on privacy, outlook, and amenity. The applicant failed to establish any of the pleaded grounds for modification under section 84(1)(a), (aa), or (c).

Parties
Applicant: Nigel Briant; Objector: Hugo Baldacchino
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Determination
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Modification of Restrictive Covenants, Residential Redevelopment, Planning Permissions, Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925
Property Law Land Use Restrictive Covenants Modification of Restrictive Covenants Residential Redevelopment Planning Permissions 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Briant

Applicant

Hugo Baldacchino

Objector

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant should be modified to permit redevelopment of the site for one or two houses
  2. 2 Whether the restriction secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objector
  3. 3 Whether the proposed developments constitute reasonable user of the land

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction secures practical benefits of substantial advantage to the objector by impeding the proposed developments, both singly and in combination, due to cumulative effects on privacy, outlook, and amenity. The applicant failed to establish any of the pleaded grounds for modification under section 84(1)(a), (aa), or (c).

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for modification of the restrictive covenant under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is refused in respect of all proposals, whether singly or in combination.
  • Parties may make submissions on costs.