[2024] UKUT 62 (LC)

In light of what we have said above we do not have jurisdiction to modify the covenant and so we do not need to consider the evidence adduced in an endeavour to paint Mr Patel in a bad light and thereby persuade us not to exercise our discretion in favour of the applicants. Had we had a discretion, that evidence would not have attained its objective. In Ridley v Taylor [1965] 1 WLR 611 at [623] Russell LJ said:

“I do not think the personality of the applicant or his past behaviour is relevant to the exercise of the discretion. I refer again to the fact that tomorrow an assign may make the same application.”

Nothing in the evidence that was adduced would have dissuaded us from exercising our discretion in the applicants’ favour had we been in a position to do so. But we are not.