Key Facts
- •Great Jackson Street Estates Ltd. (applicant) holds a lease with ~61 years remaining on two redundant warehouses in Manchester.
- •The lease contains covenants preventing redevelopment without Manchester City Council's (objector) consent.
- •The Council is willing to consent but only on terms unacceptable to the applicant.
- •The applicant sought modification/discharge of eleven covenants under section 84, Law of Property Act 1925, to redevelop the site into two 56-storey residential towers.
- •The applicant's business model involves developing and then letting flats on short tenancies.
- •The Council offered a new 250-year lease on terms it considers standard, but the applicant finds them onerous.
Legal Principles
The Upper Tribunal has discretion to modify or discharge restrictive covenants if one of the jurisdictional grounds in section 84(1) is met.
Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45
A covenant is obsolete under section 84(1)(a) if changes render its original purpose unachievable.
Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & Co’s Application [1956] 1 QB 261; Chatsworth Estates Ltd v Fewell [1931] 1 Ch 224
When considering whether a use is reasonable under section 84(1)(aa), the Tribunal should assume the restrictions don't exist.
Caledonian Associated Properties Ltd v East Kilbride DC (1985) 49 P&CR 410
The Tribunal should consider the statutory development plan and planning permission patterns when assessing reasonable use.
Section 84(1B), Law of Property Act 1925
Outcomes
Application dismissed.
The applicant failed to establish any of the jurisdictional grounds (a, aa, or c) for modification under section 84.