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


Lunchtime learning session on Ocean Outdoor -v- London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Nottingham office

The Court of Appeal has recently handed down judgment in Ocean Outdoor v London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham. Join us on our lunchtime learning session about this case.

View event


Managing procurement risks and challenges Manchester office

Have you ever received a letter challenging a regulated procurement procedure? Has your authority ever had proceedings issued against it for breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015?

View event

focus on...

Care Quality Commission and health & care regulatory update 7 November

Carl May-Smith provides an update on CQC & Competitions & Markets Authority enforcement.


Legal updates

ECJ guidance on applying exclusions to potential problem bidders

Rebecca McLean reviews the case of Delta Antrepriză de Construcţii şi Montaj 93 SA v Compania Naţională de Administrare a Infrastructurii Rutiere SA, which highlights the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ’s) recent ruling on the interpretation of Article 57(4) of Directive 2014/24 (the public procurement directive), which provides useful clarification over when contracting authorities can apply exclusions grounds where an economic operator has been in default under a prior public contract.


Upcoming webinars

IR35: If it walks like a duck...

In the UK, a great number of organisations engage self-employed IR35 contractors to complete work on their behalf.


Legal updates

Social care - October 2019

Welcome to our social care newsletter for October 2019.


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