Mr Jeremy Keck
Mr Jeremy Keck
In his witness statement Mr Keck described how in 2004 he had approached the Royal Surgical Aid Society via a third party and agreed a price for Lea Hurst in an ‘off market’ transaction. Mr Keck had previous experience of running care homes and mentioned that the Society felt it necessary to prevent him from selling the three buildings as a nursing home for a higher figure than his purchase price, although he provided no details about the means by which the restriction was to be achieved.
He explained that he never had any intention to operate Lea Hurst as a care home, his intention being to live in the house and to sell The Coach House and Lamp Cottage. Unfortunately, his plans did not wholly come to fruition as his wife was diagnosed with cancer shortly after the purchase and he decided to sell the entire estate. He was successful in selling The Coach House and Lamp Cottage to Mrs Cunningham. Mr Keck described Mrs Cunningham as being concerned that he might use Lea Hurst as a care home. In his view the covenant was not meant to prevent the use of a few bedrooms for paying guests.
- 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)