Heading

Derby Civil Justice Centre and the Royal Courts of Justice
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 84 OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS – MODIFICATION –– covenant not to use historic house other than as a single private residence - proposal to use five bedrooms for bed and breakfast purposes - whether covenant secures practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to neighbouring owner – application granted subject to acceptance of further restriction by applicant – Law of Property Act 1925, s84(1)(a)(aa)(b) and (c)
BETWEEN
PETER MARTIN KAY
Applicant
-and-
JOANNE SARAH CUNNINGHAM (1)
BARRY NIX (2)
Objectors
Re: Lea Hurst,
Lea Shaw,
Holloway,
Matlock,
DE4 5AT
Mr Mark Higgin FRICS
26-27 July and 23 August 2023
Decision Date: 24 October 2023
David Peachey instructed by A City Law Firm Limited for the applicant
Andrew Francis instructed by BRM Law Limited for the objectors
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45
Chatsworth Estates Ltd v Fewell [1931] 1 Ch 224
Hodgson v Cooke [2023] UKUT 41 (LC)
Re Bass Ltd’s Application (1973) 26 P&CR 156
Re O’Byrne [2018] UKUT 395 (LC)
Re The Trustees of Green Masjid and Madrasah [2013] UKUT 0355(LC)
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Facts
- The covenant
- The statutory provisions
- The application
- The objections
- Evidence for the applicant
- Mr Jeremy Keck
- Mr Anthony Jurkiw
- Evidence for the objectors
- Mr Barry Nix
- Expert Evidence
- Discussion
- Is the proposed use reasonable?
- Does the covenant impede the proposed use?
- Does prevention of the intended use secure practical benefits?
- Are the practical benefits of either substantial value or substantial advantage?
- Discretion
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 251 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)