Key Facts
- •Application under s.84, Law of Property Act 1925 to discharge a restrictive covenant preventing non-agricultural use of farmland.
- •Applicant: Mr. Robertson, registered owner since 2000.
- •Objectors: Mr. and Mrs. Pace, owners of benefitted land since around 2013.
- •Covenant imposed in 1995, restricting use to agriculture.
- •Application land: ~215 acres, currently used for arable farming.
- •Benefitted land: ~9 acres, mostly woodland.
- •Significant changes in the surrounding area since 1995, including demolition of a power station and construction of a sewage treatment works, solar farm, and anaerobic digester.
- •Applicant argued covenant was obsolete and discharge wouldn't injure the benefitted land.
- •Objectors argued covenant remained useful and discharge would cause injury.
Legal Principles
Section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 allows discharge or modification of restrictive covenants if certain conditions are met.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.84(1)
Ground (a) of s.84(1): A restriction is obsolete if changes in the character of the property, neighbourhood, or other material circumstances mean the restriction's purpose can no longer be achieved.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.84(1)(a)
Ground (c) of s.84(1): A covenant can be discharged if it won't injure those entitled to its benefit.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.84(1)(c)
In determining whether a restriction should be discharged under s.84, the Tribunal must consider the development plan and any pattern of grant or refusal of planning permissions in the area.
Law of Property Act 1925, s.84(1B)
A covenant is not obsolete if its object is still capable of fulfillment and it still affords real protection to those entitled to enforce it.
Re Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & Co. Ltd’s Application [1956] 1 QBD 261
When considering an objection to the discharge of a covenant under ground (c), the Tribunal should consider whether the objection is frivolous or vexatious.
Ridley v Taylor [1965] 1 WLR 611
Outcomes
Application refused.
The Tribunal found that the covenant was not obsolete (ground (a) not met) and that its discharge would injure the objectors (ground (c) not met).