Richard Charles Hodgson & Anor v Terence Cook & Ors
[2023] UKUT 41 (LC)
Rajarajan Narayanasamy Naidu & Anor v Valerie Morton & Ors
1 August 2023
[2023] UKUT 185 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Homeowners wanted to add onto their house and use it for business. They got permission to build the addition, but not to use it for business because they didn't explain exactly what kind of business they'd run.
Key Facts
- •Renewed application to discharge or modify restrictive covenants at 52 Beechcroft Manor, Weybridge.
- •Covenants restrict external alterations and business use.
- •Previous application (Naidu & Anor v Morton & Ors [2022] UKUT 172 (LC)) partially refused pending planning permission.
- •Planning permission for a side extension granted on 16 September 2022.
- •Objectors raised concerns about structural impact on adjacent property (No. 51).
- •Applicants sought modification of business restriction to allow work from home and potential future self-employment.
- •Objectors concerned about potential for disruptive non-residential uses.
Legal Principles
Tribunal's power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants under section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.
Law of Property Act 1925, Section 84(1)
Ground (a) of section 84(1): Restriction obsolete due to neighbourhood changes.
Law of Property Act 1925, Section 84(1)(a)
Ground (aa) of section 84(1): Restriction impedes reasonable use and secures no substantial benefits.
Law of Property Act 1925, Section 84(1)(aa)
Consideration of development plan, planning permission patterns, and context of restriction creation (Section 84(1B)).
Law of Property Act 1925, Section 84(1B)
Definition of 'substantial advantage' in the context of section 84 applications (Shephard v Turner [2006] 2 P&CR 28).
Shephard v Turner [2006] 2 P&CR 28
Tribunal's discretion to modify even if grounds under section 84(1) are met (Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45).
Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45
Outcomes
Application to discharge building restriction under ground (a) refused.
No significant change in neighbourhood character due to additional storey on flats.
Application to modify building restriction under ground (aa) granted.
Restriction impedes reasonable use, secures no substantial benefits, and planning permission addresses structural concerns.
Application to modify business restriction under ground (aa) refused.
Lack of detail on proposed business use prevents determination of whether statutory grounds are met.