Sean Denis Doherty & Anor v Alexander Paskhin
[2023] UKUT 196 (LC)
Rakesh Patel & Ors v Liam Philip Spender & Ors
15 March 2024
[2024] UKUT 62 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
Homeowners wanted to renovate their houses, but a rule stopped them from changing the outside look. Even though they offered compromises, a judge said no because changing the houses would ruin the neighborhood's pretty, unified design. The judge was worried that if they let these changes happen, others would want to change their houses too, ruining the whole place.
Key Facts
- •Eleven freehold houses in London's Docklands sought modification of a restrictive covenant preventing alterations affecting external appearance.
- •The applicants aimed to extend ground floors and convert loft spaces, creating dormer extensions.
- •The covenant benefits other houses and flats in the St David's Square development.
- •Applicants offered concessions including limiting occupants and a phased construction plan.
- •Objectors raised concerns about increased nuisance, strain on estate services, overlooking, architectural changes, and potential for future developments.
Legal Principles
Section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 allows modification of restrictive covenants if certain conditions are met.
Law of Property Act 1925
To modify under s.84(1)(aa), the restriction must impede reasonable land use and secure no substantial practical benefits.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.84(1)(aa), s.84(1A), s.84(1B)
The Tribunal considers the development plan, planning permission patterns, and the restriction's creation context.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.84(1B)
Modification under s.84(1)(c) requires showing it won't injure those benefiting from the restriction.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.84(1)(c)
Relevant case law considers whether a covenant provides substantial practical benefits and the potential for a 'thin end of the wedge' effect.
Re Bass (1973), Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Limited [2020], Martin v Lipton [2020], Morris v Brookmans Park Roads Ltd [2021], Shephard v Turner [2006]
Outcomes
The application to modify the covenant was refused.
The Tribunal found that the covenant's prevention of the proposed alterations secured practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the objectors, particularly regarding the preservation of the development's architectural unity and preventing a 'thin end of the wedge' effect.