Dahi Hassan & Anor v Nicholas Peter Heath
Decision date: 5 August 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 242 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
The owners of 24 Elm Road applied under s.84(1)(aa) LPA 1925 to modify a 1986 restrictive covenant preventing alteration of the external elevation so they could complete a ground-floor extension and loft conversion for family needs. The Tribunal held that alterations to doors and windows are caught by the covenant, that the covenant does secure a practical benefit to the neighbouring proprietor (owner of 24A), and proceeded with the two-stage jurisdictional and discretionary s.84(1)(aa) analysis; planning permission was relevant but not decisive. An interim injunction has restrained further works; roof works have not started and the extension remains incomplete.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The judgment indicates that a covenant prohibiting alteration of the "external ... plan or elevation" includes changes to door and window openings (not only major changes to overall appearance), and that the grant of planning permission does not automatically resolve a s.84(1)(aa) claim—the Tribunal must independently assess whether the covenant impedes reasonable use.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment records expert agreement that the minor deviations from the planning consent identified (porch/canopy, ~200mm raised side roof addition, rear window ~400mm too high) would likely not reduce the market value of the neighbouring property. It also notes that the parties' conduct (for example commencing works with awareness of the covenant) may be relevant to the discretionary stage of a s.84 application.