Heading

Case No: LC-2024-612
AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 84 OF THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand,
2 September 2025
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – DISCHARGE OR MODIFICATION – construction of first floor extension in breach of restrictions – whether restrictions are obsolete – whether discharge or modification will injure anyone – claimed loss of privacy and loss of a view – practical benefits of substantial value or advantage – Tribunal’s discretion
BETWEEN:
KEVIN JAMES HARRISON-ELLIS
KELLY ELIZABETH HARRISON-ELLIS
Applicants
and-
STUART GERALD HUNT
ANITA HUNT
Objectors
Hillside, Fairfield Road,
Goring-on-Thames,
Reading, RG8 OEU
Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke and Mrs D Martin TD MRICS FAAV
30 June 2025 – 1 July 2025
Mr Andrew Skelly for the applicant, instructed by Hedges Law Limited
Mr Paul Clarke for the objector, instructed by Field Seymour Parkes LLP
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025
The following cases were referred to in this decision:
Alexander Devine Children's Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd [2020] UKSC 45
Blue Angel Properties Limited v Jenner [2020] UKUT 360 (LC
Fosse Urban Projects Ltd v Whyte [2023] UKUT 286 (LC)
Morris v Brookmans Park Roads Limited [2021] UKUT 125 (LC)
- Heading
- Introduction
- The factual background
- Section 3
- The development at Hillside
- Development at Korobe
- Development at Claremont
- The present dispute
- The legal background
- Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to modify the restrictions?
- Ground (a): are the covenants obsolete?
- Ground (aa): practical benefits of substantial value or advantage
- The view from Korobe
- Privacy: prevention of overlooking
- The expert valuation evidence
- The sincerity of the objectors’ position
- Control of development at Gap House and Claremont
- Conclusions on ground (aa)
- Ground (c)
- Discretion
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 295 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)