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

the Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Millgate Developments Ltd and another [2018] EWCA Civ 2679

9 January 2019

The Court of Appeal refused to modify restrictive covenants where a development was knowingly carried out in breach of the covenants.


A developer (M) constructed a social housing development of 23 units on a site called Exchange House. Of these, 13 units were built on the part of the site burdened by restrictive covenants that prohibited the land from being used for building or for any purpose other than a car park. M went ahead with the development despite objections from Mr Smith (S), who owned part of the land that benefited from the covenants. The remainder of the land that benefited from the covenants had been donated by S to a children’s cancer trust (the Trust), which was in the process of building a hospice to accommodate terminally ill children.

M applied to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) to modify the restrictive covenants under section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The ground M relied on was (aa). This allows the UT to discharge or modify a restrictive covenant if the covenant impedes some reasonable use of the land, but only if: (a) either the covenant does not secure any practical benefit of substantial value or advantage or is contrary to the public interest; and (b) money would be adequate compensation to anyone suffering loss or disadvantage from the discharge or modification.

The UT initially granted M’s application even though M had deliberately chosen to build in breach of the covenants, despite being requested not to do so. It ruled that the covenants were contrary to the public interest as it was not in the public interest for houses that were otherwise available to meet a pressing social need to remain unoccupied.

The Trust appealed against the UT’s decision.


Were the covenants contrary to the public interest?


In applying the public interest test under section 84(1), the UT should have had regard to whether an applicant had made fair use of the opportunities available to it to try to negotiate a waiver of a covenant or, if necessary, to test the public interest arguments in an application made before acting in breach of that covenant. Whilst there may on occasions be reasons why it was not practical for a developer to do that, generally it was in the public interest that contracts should be honoured and not breached and that property rights should be upheld and protected.
As M had deliberately circumvented the proper procedures for testing the Trust's rights under the covenants (by not applying to the UT until the units had been built), the UT could not properly have been satisfied that it was contrary to the public interest for the covenants to be maintained. Given M’s conduct, it was in the public interest that M should bear the risk of wasting its resources in building on the site.

Points to note/consider

One of the factors influencing the UT’s decision was that M had obtained planning permission to build the units and that this showed an objective assessment of appropriate land use which fully took into account the public interest. However, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed orthodox thinking that this was irrelevant and that the questions of whether planning permission should be granted and whether upholding a restrictive covenant was contrary to the public interest were different and arose in very different contexts.

This case therefore serves as a clear warning to developers of the risks involved in carrying out a development in breach of a restrictive covenant even if planning permission has been obtained without any objections (neither S nor the Trust objected to M’s planning application). It is not clear from this case whether the 13 units in question (which have already been transferred to a provider of social housing) will now need to be demolished, but that would seem to be the most likely outcome (especially as Slade LJ doubted the correctness of the UT’s finding that money would be adequate compensation if the covenants were modified).

training and events


In-house lawyers' update Manchester office

Our next in-house lawyers' sessions will give in-house lawyers the tools and strategies for dealing with some of the problems caused by recent changes to the law.

View event


In-house lawyers' update Nottingham office

Our next in-house lawyers' sessions will give in-house lawyers the tools and strategies for dealing with some of the problems caused by recent changes to the law.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

Public matters - August 2019

This month includes third country bidders and goods in the EU procurement market, framework agreements, conservation newsletter, first ICO fines under GDPR and the government's MSA review response.


Legal updates

Third country bidders and goods in the EU procurement market

On 24 July 2019 the European Commission issued ‘Guidance on the participation of third country bidders and good in the EU procurement market’ which provides practical advice to EU contracting authorities on how to deal with bidders from outside of the EU.


Legal updates

Conservation newsletter - August 2019

Welcome to Browne Jacobson’s August 2019 conservation newsletter, looking at climate change, bird netting, Oak Processionary Moth, recent case law and legislation updates.


Legal updates

Frameworks - still fit for purpose?

Frameworks feel like an institutional part of public procurement in the UK and in Europe. Last year Browne Jacobson undertook some market research with the CBI to look at public procurement from the private sector perspective.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

David Harris

David Harris

Professional Development Lawyer

View profile

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up