- Restrictive covenants modified to permit dog-grooming business (Re Holden)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What is the law in this area?
- What did the UT decide?
- What did the UT decide on ground (a)?
- No change in character
- The purpose of the restrictions could still be served
- What did the UT decide on ground (c)?
- No objections indicated no injury
- Knowing breach
- ‘Thin end of the wedge’?
- Exercise of discretion—no discharge, but limited restrictions justified
- Case details
Property analysis: Restrictive covenants were modified, to allow a dog-grooming business to continue, despite only being entered into four years previously. The lack of objection was significant.
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