Steven Stuart Johnson & Anor, An Application by
Decision date: 10 November 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 294 (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
This Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision concerned an application by Mr and Mrs Johnson to modify two historic restrictive covenants preventing business use of 44 Knights Hill so they could operate an Ofsted-registered childminding business. The Tribunal found that operating a small childminding business for up to six children is a reasonable use of the property, that the 1937 and 1965 covenants impeded that use, and that modification under s.84(1)(aa) was justified because no identifiable persons were entitled to the benefit. The Tribunal ordered amendments to the Charges Register to permit the Ofsted-registered childminding use, subject to conditions and the applicants' acceptance.
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
Where a restrictive covenant impedes a reasonable private use of land and there are no identifiable persons entitled to the benefit, the Tribunal may modify the covenant under section 84(1)(aa). Evidence from the local planning authority indicating that the proposed use does not require planning permission can be sufficient for the Tribunal to treat the proposed use as reasonable in the absence of a planning application.
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
Site-specific physical factors (such as access on a bend, constrained turning and parking) are relevant to the reasonableness assessment but can be outweighed by practical evidence (for example staggered vehicle movements, driveway capacity, and police collision/speeding data) about likely impact on neighbours where planning scrutiny is absent. Such operational and statistical evidence may be persuasive in assessing likely impacts.