- Release of restrictive covenants—benefits to objector’s land not benefitted by covenant relevant (Re Copleston and Norton)
- What the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the UT decide?
- Case details
Property analysis: The decision in this case supports the proposition that it is permissible for the Upper Tribunal (UT), when deciding an application under section 84(1)(aa) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) to have regard to the practical benefits secured by an objector in relation to land other than benefiting land. If this decision is correct, from an applicant’s perspective, the application of LPA 1925, s 84(1)(aa) will, in some cases, be more limited than might at first thought to be the case. Written by Edward Denehan, barrister at 9 Stone Buildings, who acted for the applicants in the case.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial