0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Developers: disregard restrictive covenants at your peril

6 November 2020

The Supreme Court has decided a significant appeal on the Upper Tribunal’s power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants pursuant to section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act (“1925 Act”).

In this case, a developer constructed a social housing development. Some of the units were built on land burdened by restrictive covenants. These covenants prohibited building on the land and restricted use of the land for car parking only.

Following completion of the development, the developer applied to the Upper Tribunal to modify the restrictive covenants on the ground that they impeded a reasonable use of the land and, in doing so, were contrary to the public interest.

The application was allowed by the Tribunal but overturned by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the developer’s appeal. It ruled that the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration both that the developer could have built on the part of the site that was not burdened by the restrictive covenants and that a developer should not be rewarded for, in effect, deliberately and cynically presenting the Tribunal with a fait accompli.

This case acts as a clear warning to developers of the risks involved in carrying out a development in breach of restrictive covenants even where there is no objection to a planning application. Where an application needs to be made to modify or discharge restrictive covenants under section 84(1) of the 1925 Act, developers should apply to the Upper Tribunal prior to commencing development.

Related opinions

Flexible working, childcare and indirect sex discrimination – important reminder

The courts have long recognised that, on a societal level, women bear a greater burden of childcare responsibilities than men which can make it more difficult for women to comply with employer requirements for flexible working (known as the ‘childcare disparity’).

View blog

Relief for landlords as the Court of Appeal confirms that leases have been validly contracted out

One of the requirements for tenants to contract out of the security of tenure regime contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is that they make a simple or statutory declaration before entering into the lease.

View blog

The High Court offers no comfort for beleaguered retailers

Whilst this decision may not be surprising, it will undoubtedly send a chill down the spine of retailers in a similar position to The Fragrance Shop.

View blog

The Debt Respite Scheme and its implications for creditors

The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 is due to come into force on 4 May 2021. It’s a snappy title but what exactly is it?

View blog

No photo

James Coles

Partner and Head of Real Estate Litigation

View profile

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up