Sean Denis Doherty & Anor v Alexander Paskhin

Sean Denis Doherty & Anor v Alexander Paskhin

The restriction does not secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objector, and the proposed works are reasonable and adequately protected by statutory indemnity and offered warranty. Modification is justified under section 84(1)(aa).

Parties
Applicant: Sean Denis Doherty; Applicant: Dino Zoccheddu; Objector: Alexander Paskhin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Discharge or Modification of Restrictive Covenant / Final Determination
Outcome
restriction modified
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Modification of Covenants, Party Wall, Compensation, Planning Permissions
Property Law Land Use Restrictive Covenants Modification of Covenants Party Wall Compensation Planning Permissions

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

Parties

Sean Denis Doherty

Applicant

Dino Zoccheddu

Applicant

Alexander Paskhin

Objector

Procedural Posture

Application for Discharge or Modification of Restrictive Covenant / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant should be discharged or modified under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the restriction secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objector
  3. 3 Whether money would be adequate compensation for any loss or disadvantage

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction does not secure practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objector, and the proposed works are reasonable and adequately protected by statutory indemnity and offered warranty. Modification is justified under section 84(1)(aa).

Court Disposition

restriction modified

Orders

  • Restriction in Charges Register for 4 Kerfield Place, London SE5 8SX modified under section 84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925 to permit development as per Certificates of Lawfulness 21/AP/2439 and 21/AP/2438, subject to attached conditions and approved drawings.
  • Condition: On first occasion of dispute under s.10 Party Wall etc. Act 1996, no application for costs against adjoining owner; reasonable costs awarded against adjoining owner to be reimbursed by building owners.