Covenant not to erect additional buildings did not stop the demolition and replacement of a building

In the case of McDonagh v Reeve [2023], the Court decided that the demolition of a property and its replacement with a substantially bigger building was not a breach of covenant. The parties in the case were Mr and Mrs McDonagh who owned Rose Cottage in Poole. The neighbour of the adjoining property was Karen Reeve.  Ms Reeve’s property had benefit of a restrictive covenant which was binding on Rose Cottage and provided that 'no additional buildings whatsoever' should 'at any time be erected' on the land. Mr and Mrs McDonagh applied to the Court for a declaration that their proposed demolition of the current building on their land and its replacement by a substantially larger building, for which they had received planning consent, would not amount to a breach of that covenant. The court…

'Like being on display in a zoo': what are the consequences of the Tate Modern court ruling?

The Fearn v Tate Gallery Supreme Court decision in February 2023 received considerable coverage in the press not least because of the high profile nature of the defendant. How much will this case impact on nuisance disputes between neighbours? The claim was brought by the owners of long leasehold flats in a development directly opposite the new extension of the Tate Modern. One of the features of the building was a viewing gallery which enabled visitors to see straight into flats with visitors frequently looking into the flats and taking photographs and, less frequently, using binoculars. The claimants applied to the court for an injunction requiring the Tate to prevent members of the public from observing their flats on the grounds of nuisance. They also claimed a breach of their rights under article 8 of…

Restrictive covenants revisited

In a recent case before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Housing Solutions v Smith [decision 27 January 2023] the Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for the modification of restrictive covenants which restricted use of a site to parking of cars so as to permit housing development. Mr John Smith (founder of the Landmark Trust) owned a large area of agricultural land just outside Maidenhead. Adjoining it was a small industrial estate, whose owner, Stainless Steel Profile Cutters Limited (“SSPCL”) wanted to construct a car park; the layout of the estate provided a convenient triangle, and in 1972 Mr John Smith sold to SSPCL a further triangle so as to make a rectangle, known as the “Exchange House site”. In the conveyance SSPCL gave restrictive covenants for the benefit of Mr John Smith’s adjoining land which provided…

Claiming compensation for negligent financial advice

Sometimes we need to make a financial decision that is of such importance we decide to pay for professional advice. This may be from an accountant, a tax specialist, a pensions expert, a mortgage consultant, an independent financial advisor, a land valuer or surveyor, or even a lawyer offering financial or tax planning services.   By seeking professional input, we aim to arm ourselves with the information needed to ensure that the decisions we make are well-informed and that they are geared towards helping us to safeguard or improve our financial fortunes rather than making them worse. So where do you stand if you discover, possibly months or even years down the line, that the advice you have been given may be wrong or inappropriate and where it is likely that your financial interests have been harmed…

Discharge of restrictive covenants for childminding business

In a recent decision by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Johnson, Re [2022]), it was ordered that two restrictive covenants that burdened a detached two-storey house be modified under section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, to allow it to be used as an Ofsted registered childminding business. The title to Mr and Mrs Johnson’s house at 44 Knights Hill, Aldridge, Walsall was burdened by two restrictive covenants: one prevented use of the house for most trades and businesses and the other required it to be used as a private dwellinghouse only. The Johnsons applied to the Upper Tribunal requesting modification of both restrictions to allow it to be used for a childminding business. Despite service of publicity notices, it had not proved possible to identify the beneficiary of the covenants. The local planning…

Understanding your rights: the thorny issue of rights of way

Disputes over rights of way typically flare up where there is a change in how the right is being used, typically a consequence of development of land or intensification of existing use. At the risk of over simplifying an area of law that is far from straightforward, rights of way can be granted by deed to a property or they may be created by long use for 20 years. Rights that are granted may be limited by words e.g. a right for agricultural use only. Rights acquired by use will be limited by the extent and nature of use over the years e.g. a right of way that  has always been used to access your neighbour’s land on foot can only ever be a footpath.   Diversification and changing use of farms and farmland is a…

Litigation fixed costs: what are they and how will it affect your dispute?

On 6 September 2021 The Ministry of Justice confirmed that it intended to implement proposals for fixed recoverable costs for ‘fast-track cases’ and in most money claims worth up to £100,000. How will that impact on claims in the civil courts? Since the 2021 announcement progress in implementing the new costs regime has been slow but it now seems likely that fixed costs for most claims worth up to £100,000 will be coming next year and some commentators predicting that the fixed costs regime will be extended to cover cases up to a value of £250,000, possibly within the next 5 years. What are fixed costs? The proposals are intended to ‘fix’ the amount of costs that a successful party can recover from a losing party. Historically a successful party awarded their costs nearly always suffered…

How do you stop someone gaining rights over your land?

Rights may be acquired over your land if you either fail to address unauthorised use by third parties or give permission to others to use your land without seeking professional advice. How can you avoid this occurring? Where land is unregistered, as is often still the case with farmland, in certain circumstances someone occupying land belonging to someone else without their permission (a squatter) can after 12 years ‘squatting’ acquire ‘title’ to the land by their adverse possession. You could avoid this happening on your land by regular inspection of your boundaries and ensuring that you have an up to date plan of your land. If your land is unregistered then registering title at the Land Registry will involve a thorough review of your land and can be a useful precautionary measure. Since 2003…

Application to modify restrictive covenant on agricultural land unsuccessful despite grant of planning permission

In a recent case before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), Collins and another v Howell and another [2022], the Tribunal was asked by Mr and Mrs Collins to modify a restrictive covenant to permit the construction of a manège on their land at Newpark Stables in accordance with a planning consent that had been obtained. Mr and Mrs Howell own the adjacent Higher Norris Farm which benefits from a restrictive covenant prohibiting use of the Collins’ land for any purpose other than “the grazing of sheep and horses and arable use of all types and the production of grass cutting” and expressly prevented the construction of “any buildings other than stables on the far boundaries only”. Mr and Mrs Collins bought Newpark Stables in 2019 with the benefit of planning permission granted in 2011 for equestrian…

ALL CHANGE! County Court ruling says landlords must obtain gas certificate before an AST is created

A recent County Court decision may be bad news for residential landlords In a recent case in the County Court at Luton Byrne v Harwood-Delgado the Judge (HHJ Bloom) found that a valid s.21 notice requiring possession under the Housing Act 1988 cannot be served if a landlord has not obtained a relevant gas safety certificate before the commencement of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. In a 2020 case Trecarrell House Ltd v Rouncefield the Court of Appeal concluded that the failure to provide a gas safety certificate prior to a tenant’s occupation did not prevent a landlord serving a s.21 notice as long as the relevant certificate had been given before service of the notice. However, HHJ Bloom in the Byrne v Harwood-Delgado said that the facts before him were different to the Trecarrell case because…