Struan Gordon Robertson v James and Alexandra Pace

Struan Gordon Robertson v James and Alexandra Pace

The covenant retains its original utility and purpose, which remains capable of fulfilment. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the restriction is obsolete or that discharge would not injure the objectors or other benefitted parties. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to discharge the covenant.

Parties
Applicant: Struan Gordon Robertson; Objector: James Pace; Objector: Alexandra Pace
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 84 Law of Property Act 1925 / Final Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Discharge of Covenants, Injury to Benefitted Land, Obsolescence of Restriction
Property Law Restrictive Covenants Discharge of Covenants Injury to Benefitted Land Obsolescence of Restriction

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Struan Gordon Robertson

Applicant

James Pace

Objector

Alexandra Pace

Objector

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant restricting use of land to agricultural purposes is obsolete under s.84(1)(a) Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether discharge of the covenant would injure persons entitled to the benefit under s.84(1)(c) Law of Property Act 1925

Ratio Decidendi

The covenant retains its original utility and purpose, which remains capable of fulfilment. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the restriction is obsolete or that discharge would not injure the objectors or other benefitted parties. The Tribunal therefore lacks jurisdiction to discharge the covenant.

Court Disposition

application refused