Nigel James Rutherford Briant v Hugo John Baldacchino
[2024] UKUT 164 (LC)
Great Jackson Street Estates Limited v Manchester City Council
8 August 2023
[2023] UKUT 189 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A company wanted to build flats on some old warehouses, but the lease said they needed the council's permission. The council said yes, but only if the company agreed to some extra rules. The company didn't like the extra rules and asked a judge to change the lease, but the judge said no because the council's rules were fair and protected the neighborhood.
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A covenant is obsolete under section 84(1)(a) if changes render its original purpose unachievable.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.
Similar Cases
Blackhorse Investments (Borough) Limited v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark
[2024] UKUT 33 (LC)
Rajarajan Narayanasamy Naidu & Anor v Valerie Morton & Ors
[2023] UKUT 185 (LC)
Anthony Rogers & Anor v Michael Dinshaw & Ors
[2024] UKUT 1 (LC)
Clarion Housing Association Limited v VC Chitty & Ors
[2024] UKUT 187 (LC)