- Factors that can legitimately justify withholding consent to development plans under a restrictive covenant (89 Holland Park Management Ltd v Hicks)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Property analysis: The principal issue on this appeal concerned the permissible grounds upon which a freeholder may potentially withhold its consent under a restrictive covenant requiring its prior approval to plans, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The Court of Appeal has held that, in considering such an application for consent, a freehold owner of a building which is let on long leases is in principle entitled to take into account the interests and views of the leaseholders where the covenant was taken for the benefit of the building. Further, a freehold owner is in principle able to refuse its consent on aesthetic grounds even if the proposed development would not impact its reversion and even if it is a corporation as opposed to an individual. Written by Camilla Lamont, barrister, at Landmark 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