Restrictive Covenants: public interest under s.84 Law of Property Act 1925
Millgate Developments Limited & Anr v Bartholomew Smith & Anr  EWCA Civ 2679
Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v. Housing Solutions Limited  UKSC 45
The Supreme Court unanimously refused to modify or discharge restrictive covenants that prohibited building on the relevant land.
The developer’s conduct in building the houses on the land before addressing the objector’s rights under the covenants was considered “highly relevant” to the overall decision as to whether or not to allow the modification of the covenant.
This decision may now allow the neighbouring children’s hospice to seek an injunction to require the removal of the houses, although the decision on this remains a matter for the court’s discretion.
The original applicant had obtained planning permission for and completed a development of 23 social housing units on its land, including a block of flats, various terraced houses and bungalows. It subsequently transferred these to a housing association, Housing Solutions Limited.
The development breached certain restrictive covenants imposed in a 1972 conveyance, which prohibited the use of the land for building or for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles. The applicant originally sought the modification of the covenants under grounds (aa) and (c) of s.84 Law of Property Act 1925 (“LPA”).
The key objector was a trust which owned immediately adjoining land which was being developed into a hospice for sick children. The trust contended that its carefully planned calm and peaceful environment for the hospice – particularly the outdoor areas – would be seriously compromised by the presence of new housing so close to its boundary. (The roofs of the applicant’s bungalows were visible over the boundary fence with the hospice land and the upper floor bedrooms of the houses overlooked the hospice grounds.)
Please click here to see the decisions at the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.
Decision of the Supreme Court
There were four grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court, but the key point was the extent to which the developer’s conduct should be taken into account when deciding whether or not the covenants should be modified on the ground that they were “contrary to public interest”.
(The original application here sought to modify the restrictions under s.84(1)(aa) LPA 1925, i.e. on the basis that it impeded a reasonable user of land. Under s.84(1A), modification is permitted where (a) the person who is entitled to the benefit of the restriction does not secure any practical benefits of substantial value or advantage from it; or (b) the restriction is contrary to the public interest. For the purposes of s.84(1A), consideration also has to be given as to whether money is adequate compensation for the loss or disadvantage to the beneficiary as a result of the modification of the restriction.)
The Supreme Court agreed that the starting point with this type of application should be to ask whether impeding the reasonable use of the land by the continuation of the restrictive covenants is contrary to the public interest. Disagreeing with the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court found that the conduct of the developer was irrelevant at this initial jurisdictional stage of considering public interest; it was a question of considering the merits of the competing uses of the land. Here, that meant considering the waste of housing against the hospice providing a sanctuary for children dying of cancer. The Supreme Court found no error in law made by the Upper Tribunal in deciding that ground (aa) was satisfied, i.e. the presence of the covenants was operating contrary to the public interest.
The developer’s conduct was, however, “highly relevant” at the discretionary stage and to the overall decision as to whether or not to order the modification of the covenant.
The Supreme Court considered whether the Upper Tribunal had made an error of law by failing properly to take account of the developer’s “cynical breach” in the exercise of its discretion. It noted that once a jurisdictional ground has been established, the discretion to refuse an application should be “cautiously exercised”. However, it found that the Upper Tribunal had made an error in exercising its discretion, but for different reasons to the Court of Appeal:
- The Supreme Court gave particular weight to the fact that the developer initially applied for planning permission to build the affordable housing units on an area of the land unaffected by the restrictive covenants and the local planning authority indicated that they would have granted permission. In other words, the developer could have built the development so as to avoid breaching the covenants and detrimentally affecting the trust.
- In the Supreme Court’s view, the developer’s decision not to take this approach fundamentally altered the position in relation to public interest. It pointed out that if the developer had respected the rights of the trust and not started the development before dealing with the restrictive covenants, the developer would not have satisfied the “contrary to public interest” jurisdictional ground in s.84(1)(aa). It therefore agreed with Counsel for the trust when he said that it would be wrong to allow a developer “to secure the modification of the covenant in reliance on the state of affairs created by their own deliberate breach”.
The Supreme Court was “sorely tempted to agree” with the principle suggested by the Court of Appeal that a developer who commits a “cynical breach” should have its application refused. However, it felt that this would be too rigid a principle and would inappropriately fetter the Upper Tribunal’s discretion.
The Upper Tribunal’s failure to take account the above factors in its exercise of discretion was found to be an error of law and the appeal was rejected on this basis.
TL4 Fire Starters
Join us for a Festive FIRE Starters evening ahead of FIRE Starters Global Summit with our expert panellists.
Women in Chancery Christmas Celebration
Join us to celebrate the festive season and discuss the busy year we have had.
The Metro quotes Paul Stone on Elon Musk's feud with Apple over Twitter advertising
Musk feuds with Apple over Twitter advertising
Life Sciences - Where Next?
Disclosing Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration: Where Are We Now?
What is third-party funding and what further developments can we expect in this fast-moving area?
Part 2: The Tip of the Triangle – Taking advantage of London’s potential in the Life Sciences Sector
Rose Carey quoted in The Evening Standard on visitor visa applications
“Family visas are currently taking up to six months to process and with no priority service available...”
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Guildford Games Developer Community on the launch of Guildford.Games Ltd
Charles Russell Speechlys has advised the Guildford.Games committee, a not-for-profit initiative, on the formation of Guildford.Games Ltd
Alexia Egger Castillo
Inheritance contracts: An unknown planning tool for Brits with assets in Switzerland?
How you choose to dispose of your estate after death requires careful consideration, especially where assets are in multiple jurisdictions
FT Ignites Europe quotes William Garner on the FCA's approach to founder-led firms
"Taking a very strict line on founder-led firms risks undermining the FCA's competition mandate..."
Paula Boast is interviewed by Construction Week on Bahrain's construction industry and how it is moving towards more functional and responsible building
Dissecting Bahrain's construction practices
Part 1: The Tip of the Triangle – Examining London’s Potential in the Life Sciences Sector
HR Magazine quotes Nick Hurley on redundancy and employee rights
"Unfortunately the legal remedies for employees in companies that become insolvent are very limited"
Construction News quotes David Savage on the slight rise in construction output in September
"It remains to be seen how the sector reacted in October amid the political turmoil"
How final is a Final Certificate?
A recent Scottish case grappled with the complexities of a smash and grab adjudication.
HR Magazine quotes Nick Hawkins on a pregnancy discrimination case and what companies need to be mindful of
Pregnant worker given parenting tips before sacking wins tribunal case
Court of Appeal decides defective notice to quit not saved by 'Mannai' principles
The Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the second appeal in O G Thomas Amaethyddiath v Turner & Ors  EWCA Civ 1446.
Charles Russell Speechlys wins Best Legal Services: Private Equity – Pan – Africa at the AGF Service Providers Awards 2022
Best Legal Services: Private Equity – Pan – Africa at the AGF Service Providers Awards 2022
“Truss me, I quit!” - 5 Tips to Handle Unexpected Resignations and Post-employment Grievances
Read our guidance for employers on dealing with unexpected and “heat of the moment” resignations
Property Patter: Damages
Remedies are perhaps the main thing on a client’s mind when they start the process of litigation.