- Discharge of restrictive covenant—original contracting parties (Father’s Field Development Ltd v Namulas Pension Trustees Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Was there jurisdiction under LPA 1925, s 84?
- Did the UT exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant?
- Was any compensation payable to the objector?
- Case details
Property analysis: On an application for discharge, alternatively modification of a qualified covenant preventing residential development otherwise than for the occupation by the covenantor’s family or employees, the Upper Tribunal (UT) confirmed the principle that an objector’s right to demand a price for its release is not a ‘practical benefit’ for the purposes of section 84 (1)(aa) and (1A)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) and that the fact that the applicant was an original covenanting party was not a bar to such an application. Just as the ‘practical benefit’ that LPA 1925, s 84 protects is not the right to extract money for consent, the ‘loss or disadvantage’ that can be compensated under LPA 1925, s 84(1)(i) does not include a negotiated share of development value. Written by Camilla Chorfi, barrister at Falcon Chambers.
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